State v. Dickson, 275 Kan. 683

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed Andrew T. Dickson's convictions for rape, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and criminal sodomy. The court addressed challenges concerning preliminary jury instructions, witness credibility, the sufficiency of the evidence for criminal sodomy, and statutory interpretation of K.S.A. 21-3505(a)(2) and (a)(3).

Holdings

1. The preliminary instruction did not produce reversible error because venue was not contested, the State presented evidence of Sedgwick County locations, and the instructions elsewhere stated that the State bore the burden of proving the elements of the offenses, including venue.
2. The instruction was neutral and did not improperly comment on the credibility of the State's witnesses.
3. K.S.A. 21-3505(a)(2) prohibits the accused's engaging in sodomy with a child aged fourteen or older but under sixteen, while K.S.A. 21-3505(a)(3) prohibits the accused's causing such a child to engage in sodomy with a person other than the defendant or with an animal.
4. The evidence did not support the charged offense under K.S.A. 21-3505(a)(3), because it showed that Dickson himself engaged in sodomy with M.D., not that he caused M.D. to engage in sodomy with another person or an animal.
5. There was no multiple-acts error because the prosecutor identified the specific incident supporting each relevant count in opening statement and closing argument, thereby making the functional equivalent of an election.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the preliminary jury instruction referring to locations in Sedgwick County improperly shifted the State's burden of proving venue.
2. Whether the preliminary instruction that all proper investigations had been conducted improperly commented on the credibility of the State's witnesses.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for causing a child aged fourteen or older but under sixteen to engage in sodomy under K.S.A. 21-3505(a)(3).
4. Whether the trial court erred by failing to give a multiple-acts unanimity instruction.
5. Whether the State's election of the particular incidents in its opening and closing arguments eliminated any multiple-acts unanimity error.

Disposition

other