State v. Berriozabal

243 P.3d 352 (Kan. 2010) · Supreme Court of Kansas · December 10, 2010 · No. No. 100,291

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Jesus Berriozabal's convictions for rape, attempted rape, and two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy. The court held that challenges to the admission of prior uncharged sexual conduct were not preserved, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a psychological examination of the complaining witness or excluding evidence of alleged prior sexual abuse. The court vacated the sentences for rape and attempted rape and remanded for additional findings and resentencing.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the Court
Luckert, J.; Thomas E. Malone, J., assigned
Jurisdiction
Kansas
Decision date
December 10, 2010
Docket number
No. 100,291
Procedural posture
Berriozabal appealed jury convictions for rape, attempted rape, and two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, challenging evidentiary rulings and his hard 25 life sentences.
Standard of review
The denial of a motion for a psychological examination of a complaining witness is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The probative value of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while materiality is reviewed de novo. A district court's determination that prior sexual-conduct evidence is probative of a material issue is upheld if reasonable minds could disagree. Preservation issues are governed by whether a timely and specific contemporaneous objection was made.
Precedential value
Published Kansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Jesus Berriozabal v. State of Kansas
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

criminal procedureevidencesentencingcruel and unusual punishmentstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureevidencesentencingconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence of Berriozabal's prior uncharged sexual conduct with M.V. under K.S.A. 60-455 when Berriozabal did not contemporaneously object at trial.
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Berriozabal's motion for a psychological examination of M.V.
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of M.V.'s alleged prior sexual abuse under the Kansas rape shield statute.
  4. Whether Berriozabal's hard 25 life sentence for rape violated section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights or the Eighth Amendment.
  5. Whether the hard 25 life sentence imposed for attempted rape was authorized when the attempt statute and Jessica's Law prescribed potentially conflicting sentences.

Holdings

  1. Berriozabal failed to preserve his challenge to the admission of the K.S.A. 60-455 evidence because he did not make a timely and specific contemporaneous objection at trial, request a standing objection, or otherwise preserve the issue.
  2. A defendant seeking a psychological examination of a complaining witness in a sex-crime case must show compelling circumstances, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Berriozabal failed to make that showing.
  3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence that M.V. may previously have been sexually abused by Eddie because the evidence was too vague, speculative, and uncorroborated to be probative.
  4. The rape sentence had to be vacated and remanded because the district court failed to make the factual findings and legal conclusions necessary to permit appellate review of Berriozabal's challenges under section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and the Eighth Amendment.
  5. Berriozabal was entitled to a nondrug severity level 1 felony sentence for attempted rape rather than a hard 25 life sentence under Jessica's Law.

Key quotations

Supreme Court Rule 165 (2008 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 235) places the primary duty for arriving at adequate findings and conclusions on the district judge. (369)
where the legislature permits the existence of conflicting statutory provisions prescribing different sentences to be imposed for a single criminal offense, the rule of lenity requires that any reasonable doubt as to which sentence applies must be resolved in favor of the offender. (371)

Factual background

Berriozabal lived with his girlfriend and her nearly eleven-year-old daughter, M.V. The State presented evidence that Berriozabal sexually assaulted M.V. on multiple occasions when her mother and sister were away, including an incident discovered by M.V.'s sister on July 7, 2006. After the incident was reported, Berriozabal abruptly left for Mexico but later returned and was arrested. The defense sought admission of evidence suggesting that M.V. had previously been sexually abused by another person and requested a psychological examination, but the district court found the evidence insufficient and denied both requests.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Berriozabal of rape, attempted rape, and two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy. The district court imposed consecutive hard 25 life sentences for the rape and attempted rape convictions and an additional consecutive term of 330 months for the aggravated criminal sodomy convictions. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, vacated the sentences for rape and attempted rape, and remanded for additional constitutional sentencing findings and resentencing.

Remand instructions

Remand for the district court to make adequate factual findings and conclusions of law concerning Berriozabal's challenges under section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and the Eighth Amendment, including whether the challenge is case-specific, categorical, or both. The district court must also resentence Berriozabal for attempted rape under the nondrug severity level 1 felony provision applicable to attempts.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…