State v. Britt

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Christopher D. Britt’s convictions for rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The court held that the challenged jury instructions did not present alternative means requiring proof of each listed factual option, and it rejected or found harmless the claimed instances of prosecutorial misconduct. The court also upheld the sentence against a Kansas constitutional cruel-or-unusual-punishment challenge but vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision.

Holdings

1. The challenged language described factual circumstances or options within a single means rather than alternative means. The State therefore was not required to present substantial evidence supporting each listed circumstance, and evidence that Britt forced A.C. to engage in oral contact with his genitalia was sufficient.
2. The phrase 'either the child or the offender, or both' describes options within the required intent element and does not create alternative means.
3. The listed methods of penetration are options within the single material means of penetration, not alternative means of committing rape. Britt was not entitled to reversal because the State did not prove penetration by an object.
4. The prosecutor improperly presented A.C.'s credibility as a choice between complete truthfulness and being an entirely evil and manipulative child, but the error was not reversible because it was not gross and flagrant, did not demonstrate ill will, and did not prejudice the verdict. The comments about the paid defense expert and the request to do the right thing were not improper.
5. Britt's life sentence with a mandatory minimum of 618 months under K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(2)(B) was not cruel or unusual under section 9.
6. The district court erred by imposing lifetime postrelease supervision on Britt, and that portion of the sentence was vacated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statutory definitions of aggravated criminal sodomy, aggravated indecent liberties, and rape created alternative means requiring sufficient evidence of every means included in the jury instructions.
2. Whether the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by presenting the jury with a false binary choice concerning A.C.'s credibility.
3. Whether the prosecutor improperly commented on the defense expert's status as a paid witness.
4. Whether the prosecutor improperly urged the jury to do the right thing and find Britt guilty.
5. Whether Britt's Jessica's Law sentence violated section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.
6. Whether the district court erred by imposing lifetime postrelease supervision.

Disposition

other