Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Sturgeon Stewart’s conviction for riot under K.S.A. 21-4104(a), holding that the statute does not require proof of an express or implied agreement among the participants. The court concluded that sufficient evidence showed Stewart used force or violence, acted with five or more persons, and acted without authority of law.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Stewart used force or violence resulting in a breach of the public peace while acting in a group of five or more persons and without authority of law.
- K.S.A. 21-4104 does not require the State to prove an express or implied agreement among the members of the group to breach the peace.
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Stewart's conviction for riot under K.S.A. 21-4104(a).
- Whether K.S.A. 21-4104(a) requires the State to prove an express or implied agreement among five or more participants to breach the peace.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- State v. Calvin, 279 Kan. 193, 198, 105 P.3d 710 (2005)(followed)
- State v. Dargatz, 228 Kan. 322, 614 P.2d 430 (1980)(distinguished)
- Commonwealth v. Apriceno, Appellant, 131 Pa. Super. 158, 161, 198 A. 515 (1938)(followed)
- Com. v. Safis et al., Appellants, 122 Pa. Super. 333, 340, 186 A. 177 (1936)(followed)
- State v. Sexton, 232 Kan. 539, 542-43, 657 P.2d 43 (1983)(followed)
- State v. Young, 55 Kan. 349, 356, 40 P. 659 (1895)(followed)
- State v. Doyen, 224 Kan. 482, 488, 580 P.2d 1351 (1978)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…