Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the reversal of Martyn O. Price's convictions for aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Price's request for an independent psychological evaluation of the victim because he failed to establish compelling reasons for the examination. The court also addressed the interpretation of K.S.A. 60-447 concerning the admissibility of specific instances of good conduct offered as character evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Price's motion for an independent psychological evaluation of the victim.
- Whether K.S.A. 60-447(a) permits a criminal defendant to introduce specific instances of good conduct as evidence of good character to prove innocence.
- Whether the Court of Appeals properly reversed the convictions based on cumulative error.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Price's request for an independent psychological evaluation because Price failed to establish compelling reasons for the examination.
- K.S.A. 60-447(a) does not permit evidence of specific instances of good conduct when offered to show that a person's conduct on a specified occasion was consistent with the person's good character; the district court properly excluded the evidence.
- The Court of Appeals erred in reversing Price's convictions based on cumulative error because neither of the two asserted trial rulings was error.
Key quotations
“Thus, Gregg established that in addition to whether there exists corroborating evidence of the victim's account, the following additional factors should be considered in determining whether compelling reasons exist for a psychological evaluation: (1) whether the victim demonstrates mental instability, (2) whether the victim demonstrates a lack of veracity, (3) whether similar charges by the victim against others are proven to be false, (4) whether the defendant's motion for a psychological evaluation of the victim appeared to be a fishing expedition, (5) whether anything unusual results following the questioning of the victims understanding of telling the truth, and (6) whether there are any other reasons why the victim should be evaluated.” (84)
“The preamble of K.S.A. 60-447 allows the admission of circumstantial evidence of how a person acted on a specified occasion.” (90)
“We conclude that the provisions of K.S.A. 60-447(a) do not permit evidence of specific instances of conduct where a party offers evidence of a person's good character to prove his or her conduct was in accord with the person's character.” (94)
Factual background
The alleged victim, F.B., was seven years old when she disclosed through letters to her mother that she had engaged in sexual conduct with Price and with her stepbrother. Price denied participating in the alleged acts but admitted that F.B. had asked him to engage in sexual conduct and that he agreed not to tell anyone after refusing the request. Price was charged with aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child based on conduct alleged to have occurred while F.B. was seven.
Procedural history
The district court denied Price's request for an independent psychological evaluation of the victim and excluded specific instances of his good conduct offered through character witnesses. After convictions and a sentence of 117 months, the Court of Appeals reversed based on those two rulings and ordered a new trial. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court and Price's convictions.