1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 118,209

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

RYAN E. PEDERSON,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; BILL KLAPPER, judge. Opinion filed June 26, 2020.

Affirmed.

Corrine E. Gunning, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Lois Malin, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, 

attorney general, for appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, P.J., BUSER and ATCHESON, JJ.

BUSER, J.: Ryan E. Pederson appeals his conviction of aggravated assault in 

violation of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2). Pederson contends there was insufficient 

evidence to support his conviction because the State failed to prove that he was disguised 

in any manner designed to conceal his identity when he committed the crime. Upon our 

review, we find that a rational jury could conclude that Pederson was disguised in a 

manner designed to conceal his identity by misrepresenting that he was a police officer or 

bail bondsman searching for a wanted man in order to facilitate the commission of his 
2

crime. Accordingly, we find there was sufficient evidence to support Pederson's 

aggravated assault conviction and we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2015, Pederson entered Michel Gonzalez-Navarro's home by falsely 

impersonating that he was a police officer or bail bondsman attempting to locate an 

individual who failed to appear in court. After entering the home, Pederson had 

nonconsensual sexual intercourse with Gonzalez-Navarro's longtime romantic partner, 

S.G., while her children and Gonzalez-Navarro were downstairs with an accomplice. The 

State charged Pederson with rape, aggravated burglary, theft, and, most relevant to this 

appeal, aggravated assault of Gonzalez-Navarro.

During trial, Gonzalez-Navarro testified that he was in his front yard on March 5, 

2015, when Pederson and another man began running towards him. Gonzalez-Navarro 

had never seen Pederson or the other man before this occasion. According to GonzalezNavarro, Pederson was dressed as a police officer and had a police badge. Because of the 

badge, Gonzalez-Navarro believed Pederson was a police officer.

After Pederson ran towards Gonzalez-Navarro, he pointed a gun at his head,

showed him a picture of a man, and demanded to know where to find S.G. GonzalezNavarro was frightened when Pederson pointed the gun at him, and he was afraid that 

Pederson might hurt him. Gonzalez-Navarro had never seen the man in the picture, and 

he did not understand why Pederson was showing him the picture due to an EnglishSpanish language barrier between the two individuals.

Gonzalez-Navarro ran inside his home and woke up S.G. Gonzalez-Navarro told 

S.G. that people were looking for her and explained that he did not know what was 

happening. When Pederson was upstairs alone with S.G., Gonzalez-Navarro had a better 
3

opportunity to observe the other man. After observing the other man's clothing, 

Gonzalez-Navarro realized that the men were not police officers.

S.G. also testified that Pederson was dressed as a police officer. She explained that 

Pederson was wearing black pants, a black shirt with a logo, and a belt. One of S.G.'s 

children, V.L., testified that the back of Pederson's shirt said "security or bounty or 

something like that." Based on Pederson's shirt, V.L. believed that Pederson and the other 

man were being paid to look for an individual or some object. In addition to Pederson's 

clothes, he carried a gun, a holster, handcuffs, a Taser, and a clipboard with a picture of a 

man.

Pederson told S.G. that he was looking for a man who resided in the house

because the man did not show up for a court date. S.G. responded that nobody he was 

looking for lived in the house. Pederson insisted that everyone in the house go downstairs 

and, believing Pederson was a police officer, S.G. told her children to follow his orders. 

S.G. asked to see a warrant allowing entry into the home, but Pederson said his partner 

possessed it. While upstairs alone with S.G., Pederson said he needed to search her for 

weapons. Pederson then handcuffed S.G. and raped her. During a photo lineup, S.G. 

identified Pederson from his neck tattoos. Her children also noticed Pederson's neck 

tattoos while he was in their house.

Detective Romulo O'Reilly testified regarding his interview with Pederson, in 

which Pederson confessed that he went to Gonzalez-Navarro's house and intended to 

steal money or drugs. Pederson told the detective that he printed off a flier that pictured a 

random wanted man and pretended that he was a bail bondsman looking for him. 

Pederson said he wore a black shirt that said "Security" and featured a badge.

At trial, Pederson testified in his defense, claiming that he did not have a gun with 

him. While Pederson admitted that he brought a broken Taser, he said he did not wear a 
4

police belt or bring handcuffs. Pederson confirmed that he wore a security shirt to 

disguise his identity. But Pederson did not wear a mask and did not attempt to cover his 

tattoos. As in his interview with Detective O'Reilly, Pederson admitted that he went to 

the house to steal drugs. Pederson also testified he intended to act like a bail bondsman, 

but he suggested that he did not dress like one.

The jury convicted Pederson of rape, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault 

of Gonzalez-Navarro "while disguised in any manner designed to conceal identity." 

Pederson filed a motion for new trial, contending the State failed to prove that he 

disguised his identity because he never masked his features and did not provide a false 

name. The district court denied the motion, finding:

"[T]he concealment of identity does not require Mr. Pederson or anyone else in a similar 

circumstance to hide his face. It's simply acting as someone he is not, and the testimony 

is clear that he was dressed in a manner and carrying a document and his claim was that 

he was a bondsman and looking for someone, so your motion for new trial will be

denied."

After denying the motion for new trial, the district court sentenced Pederson to a 

controlling sentence of 221 months in prison. He appeals.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Pederson contends there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to 

support his conviction of aggravated assault of Gonzalez-Navarro in violation of K.S.A. 

2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2).

When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged in a criminal case, we review all 

evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657, 668, 

414 P.3d 713 (2018). The conviction will be upheld if we are convinced that a rational 
5

fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on 

that evidence. In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction, 

we generally do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. 307 Kan. at 668. 

Additionally, to the extent that the issue requires interpretation of statutes, statutory 

interpretation is a question of law over which we exercise unlimited review. State v. 

Alvarez, 309 Kan. 203, 205, 432 P.3d 1015 (2019).

The jury convicted Pederson of aggravated assault in violation of K.S.A. 2014

Supp. 21-5412(b)(2). This subsection provides that aggravated assault includes 

knowingly placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm

"while disguised in any manner designed to conceal identity." K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-

5412(b)(2).

Pederson does not contest that he knowingly placed Gonzalez-Navarro in 

reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm. Instead, Pederson asserts that the 

State's evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he was disguised in any manner 

designed to conceal his identity. Pederson's argument revolves around the word identity, 

which he defines as an individual's personal characteristics, personality, or attributes. 

Pederson suggests that even though he misrepresented his occupation by dressing as a 

policeman or bail bondsman, his outfit was not designed to conceal his identity because 

his face and tattoos were left uncovered which allowed identification of his personal 

characteristics.

To determine whether Pederson was disguised in any manner designed to conceal 

identity, we must interpret the meaning of that phrase as used in K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-

5412(b)(2). The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the 

Legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. State v. LaPointe, 309 Kan. 299, 

314, 434 P.3d 850 (2019). We must first attempt to ascertain legislative intent through the 

statutory language enacted, giving common words their ordinary meanings. When a 
6

statute is plain and unambiguous, we do not speculate about the legislative intent behind 

that clear language, and we refrain from reading something into the statute that is not 

readily found in its words. State v. Ayers, 309 Kan. 162, 163-64, 432 P.3d 663 (2019).

Although criminal statutes are generally strictly construed against the State, this 

principle is subordinate to the rule that judicial interpretation must be reasonable and 

sensible to effectuate the legislative design and the true intent of the law. State v. Gensler, 

308 Kan. 674, 680, 423 P.3d 488 (2018). When construing statutes to determine 

legislative intent, we must consider various provisions of an act in pari materia with a 

view of reconciling and bringing the provisions into workable harmony if possible. We

must construe statutes to avoid unreasonable or absurd results and we presume the 

Legislature does not intend to enact meaningless legislation. State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560, 

573-74, 357 P.3d 251 (2015).

The Kansas Criminal Code does not define the phrase "disguised in any manner 

designed to conceal identity" as it is used in K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2). 

Additionally, we were unable to locate any prior Kansas case which has interpreted this 

phrase. When a statute fails to define its terms, we assume the words bear their 

"'ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.'" Midwest Crane & Rigging, LLC v. Kansas 

Corporation Comm'n, 306 Kan. 845, 851, 397 P.3d 1205 (2017). "Dictionary definitions 

are good sources for the 'ordinary, contemporary, common' meanings of words." 306 

Kan. at 851.

Black's Law Dictionary defines disguise as "1. Apparel worn to conceal one's 

identity. 2. The application of a façade to misrepresent the true nature of a thing. 3. The 

act of concealment or misrepresentation." Black's Law Dictionary 588 (11th ed. 2019). 

Pederson acknowledges that he disguised himself in any manner by wearing clothes and 

engaging in conduct intended to misrepresent that he was a police officer or bail 
7

bondsman. However, Pederson claims this disguise was not designed to conceal his 

identity.

The term conceal is defined as: "1 to put out of sight; hide" and "2 to keep from 

another's knowledge; keep secret." Webster's New World College Dictionary 307 (5th ed. 

2014). Black's Law Dictionary defines identity as:

"1. Sameness in essential attributes; the condition of being the very same thing as has 

been described or asserted. 2. The selfsame nature of two or more things . . . . 3. The 

distinguishing personality or attributes of an individual. 4. More generally, the qualities 

and attitudes that a person or group of people have, differentiating them from others. 5. 

Evidence. The authenticity of a person or thing." Black's Law Dictionary 894 (11th ed. 

2019).

Another dictionary defines identity as:

"1. the condition or fact of being the same or exactly alike; sameness; oneness [groups 

united by identity of interests] 2. a) the condition or fact of being a specific person or 

thing; individuality b) the characteristics and qualities of a person, considered collectively 

and regarded as essential to that person's self-awareness c) the condition of being the 

same as a person or thing described or claimed." Webster's New World College 

Dictionary 722 (5th ed. 2014).

The parties rely on similar dictionary definitions and agree that a disguise is 

"designed to conceal identity" when it is intended to prevent recognition of an 

individual's personal characteristics or attributes. However, the parties dispute what

personal characteristics or attributes that a disguise must be designed to conceal to fall 

within the scope of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2). Pederson argues that he 

misrepresented his occupation but did not prevent recognition of his identity because he 

did not conceal his face, tattoos, or other distinguishing physical features that could be 

used to identify him. The State counters that Pederson disguised himself as someone with 
8

authority to enter Gonzalez-Navarro's home to search for a wanted person. In this way, 

Pederson concealed his identity as a person without such authority—a burglar—who

planned to unlawfully enter the home to commit a theft and/or rape.

When considering similar statutory language, Florida courts have found that an 

individual conceals his or her identity by either (1) preventing recognition of identifiable 

features or (2) using a disguise to facilitate the commission of a crime. See Clark v. State, 

234 So. 3d 809, 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018); Fletcher v. State, 472 So. 2d 537, 540 

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Florida law provides for a penalty enhancement for a crime 

"if, while committing the offense, the offender was wearing a hood, mask, or other device 

that concealed his or her identity." Fla. Stat. § 775.0845 (2009). In Fletcher, the 

defendant and another man dressed themselves as women and solicited an automobile 

ride from a man who thought they were female prostitutes. Once in the vehicle, Fletcher 

and the other man committed an attempted robbery of the vehicle owner. At trial, the jury 

found that Fletcher committed the offense while wearing devices that concealed his 

identity and, therefore, the penalty enhancement in Fla. Stat. § 775.0845 applied.

On appeal, Fletcher argued that he did not conceal his identity because evidence 

showed he was known in the area to dress as a woman. The Fletcher court rejected this 

argument, noting that "the statute is aimed at criminals who employ devices either to 

make witnesses' identifications of them difficult or to otherwise facilitate the commission 

of a crime. This may include covering up one's face; or altering one's appearance by 

disguise or costume." (Emphasis added.) 472 So. 2d at 540. Because a reasonable jury 

could have inferred that Fletcher's disguise was used to facilitate his criminal behavior, 

the Fletcher court held that the trial court did not err by allowing the jury to consider the 

penalty enhancement of Fla. Stat. § 775.0845. 472 So. 2d at 540.

Like the Fletcher court's interpretation of the Florida statute, we find that an 

offender is "disguised in any manner designed to conceal identity" under K.S.A. 2014 
9

Supp. 21-5412(b)(2) when the offender is disguised to (1) prevent recognition of 

identifiable features by witnesses or (2) misrepresent the offender's qualities, 

characteristics, or attributes to facilitate the commission of the crime. This statutory 

construction is in line with the dictionary definitions of conceal and identity, which 

contemplate keeping an individual's attributes or qualities from another person's 

knowledge. And interpreting this subsection to increase punishment for disguising

oneself to facilitate the commission of the offense is reasonable given the enhanced 

culpability of such conduct. See State v. Nobles, 329 N.C. 239, 243, 404 S.E.2d 668 

(1991) (finding that the defendant's crime of child abduction was "particularly egregious 

[because] the defendant disguised herself as a nurse and used this disguise to abduct the 

baby").

Moreover, interpreting K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2) to include 

misrepresenting an individual's attributes—such as falsely disguising oneself as someone 

in a position of authority—best comports with the broad language used in the subsection. 

Unlike K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2), which covers committing an assault while

disguised in any manner designed to conceal identity, similar statutes in other states use 

more restrictive language limited to coverage of identifiable physical features. For 

example, Illinois' aggravated assault statute includes committing assault while one 

"[w]ears a hood, robe, or mask to conceal his or her identity." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-

2(c)(4) (2020). Because K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2) is not limited to disguising a 

person's physical features, we refuse to adopt Pederson's narrow understanding of the 

phrase "disguised in any manner designed to conceal identity."

Having found that falsely representing one's characteristics to facilitate the 

commission of the crime amounts to concealing identity under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-

5412(b)(2), we hold the State presented sufficient evidence to support Pederson's

conviction of aggravated assault of Gonzalez-Navarro. The evidence in the light most 

favorable to the State shows that Pederson was dressed like a police officer or bail
10

bondsman and misrepresented that he had the legal authority to search GonzalezNavarro's home for a man who failed to appear in court. Pederson wore an all-black outfit 

with a badge logo on the shirt while carrying a gun, handcuffs, a Taser, and a photograph 

of the supposedly wanted man. Pederson's disguise was intended to conceal his identity 

as a burglar who intended to illegally enter the Gonzalez-Navarro's home.

While disguised as a police officer or bail bondsman, Pederson pointed a gun at 

Gonzalez-Navarro's head and demanded to know where to find S.G. By misrepresenting 

his authority, Pederson's disguise was also designed to facilitate the commission of his 

assault on Gonzalez-Navarro by ensuring compliance, preventing retaliation, and 

discouraging attempts to contact law enforcement. Since Pederson's disguise was 

intended to misrepresent his true characteristics to facilitate the commission of his 

crimes, a reasonable jury could conclude that Pederson was disguised in a manner 

designed to conceal his identity.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational fact-finder 

could have found Pederson guilty of aggravated assault in violation of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 

21-5412(b)(2) by placing Gonzalez-Navarro in reasonable apprehension of immediate 

bodily harm "while disguised in any manner designed to conceal identity." Accordingly, 

we hold there was sufficient evidence to support Pederson's conviction of aggravated 

assault in violation of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2).

Affirmed.

* * *

ATCHESON, J., dissenting: The State failed to prove Defendant Ryan Pederson 

committed an aggravated assault of Michel Gonzalez-Navarro because he did not, 

contrary to the charge, disguise himself in a way designed to conceal his identity. The 

majority essentially expands the statute criminalizing that form of aggravated assault 
11

beyond the meaning of its language—deviating from both the apparent legislative intent 

and the canon of construction favoring strict interpretation of criminal statutes against the 

State. I, therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to affirm Pederson's 

aggravated assault conviction.

Pederson was, however, guilty of the simple assault of Gonzalez-Navarro, a 

misdemeanor rather than a felony—a point he more or less tacitly concedes on appeal. I 

would reverse the conviction for aggravated assault and remand with directions that 

Pederson be convicted of simple assault and sentenced accordingly. See State v. Wilt, 273 

Kan. 273, 278, 44 P.3d 300 (2002) (If the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to 

establish an element of the offense of conviction, the defendant may nonetheless be 

convicted and sentenced for a lesser included offense supported in the evidence even 

though the factfinder may not have considered that lesser offense.); State v. Harris, 46 

Kan. App. 2d 848, Syl. ¶ 7, 264 P.3d 1055 (2011). That would be an exercise devoid of 

practical significance, since Pederson has not challenged his convictions for rape and 

aggravated burglary and received a much shorter concurrent sentence on the aggravated 

assault conviction.

Here, the evidence showed that Pederson dressed in a manner loosely consistent 

with a law enforcement officer or a bail-bond agent. He wore a shirt with the legend 

"Security" on it to which he affixed a badge; a duty belt that included handcuffs, a 

holster, and what turned out to be an inoperative Taser; and a ball cap that may or may 

not have had an insignia. Pederson carried a clipboard with official looking papers 

purportedly identifying a fugitive. But Pederson did not in any way attempt to cover his 

face or obscure several of his tattoos. 

Pederson claimed to be searching for the fugitive as a ruse to enter GonzalezNavarro's house to steal drugs or other valuables, and his getup was an integral part of 
12

facilitating his planned theft. Once inside, Pederson also sexually assaulted a woman, 

resulting in the rape conviction. 

As Pederson approached the house, Gonzalez-Navarro resisted his demand to 

enter and search. Pederson drew the Taser and pointed it at Gonzalez-Navarro who 

perceived it to be a dangerous weapon and in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm 

then yielded.

As criminalized in K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(a), misdemeanor assault is 

"knowingly placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily 

harm." Pertinent here, misdemeanor assault may be elevated to felony aggravated assault 

in any one of three circumstances: (1) the crime is committed with a "deadly weapon"; 

(2) the perpetrator acts "while disguised in any manner designed to conceal identity"; or 

(3) the perpetrator assaults the victim "with intent to commit any felony." K.S.A. 2014 

Supp. 21-5412(b). The prosecutor chose to charge the aggravated assault based on K.S.A. 

2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2) on the theory Pederson had used a disguise to conceal his 

identity.[1]

[1]It's not for me to second-guess the State's charging decision. But the evidence, 

including Pederson's inculpatory statements to a detective, seem to support a charge 

under the third aggravating factor. Pederson told the detective he intended to enter the 

residence to steal drugs or money; that constitutes burglary, a felony. See K.S.A. 2014 

Supp. 21-5807(a)(1). Also, whether a defendant has used a "deadly weapon" satisfying 

the first aggravating factor depends on the reasonable perception of the victim. See State 

v. Deutscher, 225 Kan. 265, 271-72, 589 P.2d 620 (1979); State v. Bulk, No. 114,462, 

2016 WL 7494359, at *6 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion). So if GonzalezNavarro reasonably thought what Pederson brandished was a deadly weapon, then 

Pederson would be guilty of aggravated assault under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(1). 

The State could have charged Pederson in the alternative under two or all three of those 

subsections.

To resolve this issue, the majority wonders far and wide across the linguistic 

universe in sizing up the meanings of "disguise" and "identity." The majority notes 
13

definitions for identity that range from "the sameness of essential attributes" among 

constituents in a group, thus giving them a common identity, to more metaphysical 

notions of "characteristics and qualities" of a person "regarded as essential to selfawareness." Slip op. at 7. All of that is curious and seems rather plainly beside the point 

to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2) and its treatment of a defendant using a disguise to 

conceal his or her identity while assaulting someone. 

Identity in that statute refers to facial features and other physical attributes 

permitting the determination of who perpetrated the assault—not some quality of the 

perpetrator's self-awareness. Basically, identity entails what would allow the victim to 

pick the perpetrator out of a lineup or to say during a trial that the defendant committed 

the assault. And a misdemeanor assault should be elevated to felony aggravated assault 

when the perpetrator takes steps to confound that process of identification. That's the 

plain meaning of the statutory language. Even if there were some question about the 

meaning, criminal statutes should be construed strictly against the State and in favor of 

the accused. See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 96, 273 P.3d 701 (2012); State v. Bannon, 

55 Kan. App. 2d 259, 265, 411 P.3d 1246 (2018). The rule of strict construction bends to 

avoid a wholly unreasonable result or a clear derogation of legislative intent. Neither of 

those exceptions applies here.

Historically, statutes enhancing charges and resulting punishments for assaults the 

perpetrators carry out in disguise or while masked were aimed at the Ku Klux Klan, night 

riders, and similar groups that sought to intimidate and terrorize African-Americans and 

other minorities. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (2016) (commonly known as the Ku Klux 

Klan Act of 1871). Some of the statutes from other states the majority cites describe the 

disguises with sufficient particularity that one of the unmistakable purposes is to reach 

that sort of conduct. The language in K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2) is more generic. 

The Legislature, however, recognized that a realistic threat of immediate physical harm 

was all the more threatening and pernicious when the perpetrator has taken steps to avoid 
14

being identified and prosecuted and, therefore, should be punished more harshly for that 

reason. Similar considerations animate enhancing an assault carried out with a deadly 

weapon—the victim's distress and fear typically will be compounded.

Having both finished its linguistic journey and offered a review of a few statutes 

and a little caselaw from other jurisdictions, the majority pronounces that K.S.A. 2014 

Supp. 21-5412(b)(2) really establishes two criteria for elevating a simple assault from a 

misdemeanor to a felony. The first is when a defendant commits an assault in disguise to 

"prevent . . . recognition by witnesses." Slip op. at 8-9. That's the one actually found in 

the statutory language, and the one that doesn't cover what Pederson did in assaulting 

Gonzalez-Navarro. The second is when the disguise serves to "misrepresent the 

offender's qualities, characteristics, or attributes to facilitate the commission of the 

crime." Slip op. at 9. That one cannot be found in a strict reading of statutory language, 

and it's hard to discern even in a loose interpretation of the words.

In short, there is no "facilitating the crime" ground in K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-

5412(b)(2) enhancing a simple assault to an aggravated assault. To say otherwise, as the 

majority does, adds something not obviously found in the Legislature's language, 

contravening the strict construction canon for criminal statutes. It also runs counter to the 

more general canon against adding judicial embroidery to what the Legislature has 

already tailored. See Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 283 Kan. 508, Syl. ¶ 6, 154 P.3d 

494 (2007); State v. Bryan, 281 Kan 157, 159, 130 P.3d 85 (2006) (statute should not be 

read to add language not found there). Had the Legislature wanted to include a criminal 

facilitation component to the disguise criterion, it knows how to say so. The kidnapping 

statute, thus, criminalizes the "taking or confining of any person" by force or other means 

when done, among other things, "to facilitate flight or the commission of any crime." 

K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5408(a)(2).
15

Finally, the majority's augmentation of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(2) is largely 

duplicative of subsection (b)(3) that elevates a simple assault to aggravated assault when 

the perpetrator has acted with the "intent to commit any felony." An assault undertaken to 

commit a felony would be done to facilitate that crime—whether the perpetrator was 

disguised or not. As I have indicated, Pederson assaulted Gonzalez-Navarro to carry out 

his planned burglary of the house, so the State could have charged him with aggravated 

assault under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5412(b)(3). To trowel over the State's seemingly 

errant charging decision the majority simply expands the language of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 

21-5412(b)(2) to swallow up much of subsection (b)(3). I respectfully dissent from that 

endeavor.