1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 125,501

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM D. GODDARD,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; KEVIN J. O'CONNOR, judge. Submitted without oral 

argument. Opinion filed May 31, 2024. Appeal dismissed.

Hope E. Faflick Reynolds, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Kristi D. Allen, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, 

attorney general, for appellee.

Before COBLE, P.J., SCHROEDER and CLINE, JJ.

PER CURIAM: William D. Goddard timely appeals the district court's denial of his 

motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement during an overnight interrogation. 

But the record reflects he did not raise a timely objection to the admission of his 

statements at his jury trial. Because no timely objection was entered during the jury trial,

he has not preserved his claim for appeal. We dismiss his appeal.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 2, 2020, Wichita police officers were dispatched to R.W.'s residence for 

an incident that occurred between R.W. and her ex-boyfriend, Goddard. Goddard and 

R.W. got into an argument; Goddard left, but they continued to exchange a series of 

argumentative text messages. Because all the facts surrounding the incident are not 

necessary for us to outline the issue on appeal, we have limited the facts to how the 

interrogation was conducted by law enforcement.

After Goddard left R.W.'s apartment the second time, law enforcement located 

him at his residence and transported him to the police department for interrogation. 

Goddard spent about five and a half hours in an interrogation room where he was given 

his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 

(1966). During that time, Goddard was interviewed for a total of about 90 minutes, 

beginning around 2 a.m. on April 3, 2020. Goddard also voluntarily allowed law 

enforcement to search his cell phone and signed a waiver to search, providing the phone 

passcode.

The State ultimately charged Goddard with one count each of rape, attempted 

rape, kidnapping, and domestic battery, each an act of domestic violence. Before the trial, 

the district court conducted a hearing at the State's request under Jackson v. Denno, 378 

U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964), to determine whether Goddard's 

statements to law enforcement were made voluntarily under the totality of the 

circumstances. The district court determined Goddard's statements were voluntary and 

thus admissible.

The jury found Goddard guilty of all counts. The district court sentenced Goddard 

to 253 months' imprisonment for rape, 59 months' imprisonment for attempted rape, 59 
3

months' imprisonment for kidnapping, and 1 year in jail for domestic battery, with all 

sentences to run concurrent.

ANALYSIS

Goddard claims his mental condition, the nature and manner of the interview, and 

the police officers' conduct rendered his statements involuntary and inadmissible.

Goddard also argues his exhaustion, given law enforcement's decision to conduct the 

interrogation the night he was taken into custody, rendered his statements involuntary 

under the totality of the circumstances.

Preservation

The State asserts Goddard's pretrial objection to the voluntariness of his statements 

was not a timely and specific objection to the introduction of evidence during the trial

and the appeal should be denied.

"Under K.S.A. 60-404, 'a party must lodge a timely and specific objection to the 

admission or exclusion of evidence in order to preserve the evidentiary question for 

review.' 'The purpose of the rule is to avoid the use of "tainted evidence [and thereby] 

avoid possible reversal and a new trial."' 'Because an in limine ruling "is subject to 

change when the case unfolds," a pretrial objection must be contemporaneously renewed 

during trial or preserved through a standing objection.' [Citations omitted.]." State v. 

Richard, 300 Kan. 715, 720-21, 333 P.3d 179 (2014).

"This rule acknowledges that different, more, or less evidence may come in at trial than 

was admitted or proffered at a pretrial hearing. Or a district court judge may simply see 

the issue in a different light after hearing additional arguments and evidence." State v. 

Ballou, 310 Kan. 591, 613, 448 P.3d 479 (2019).
4

Here, the district court conducted a pretrial Denno hearing. At the hearing, the 

State asked the district court to find any statements Goddard made in the police interview 

were made in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner. The State also asked the 

district court to find Goddard was read his Miranda rights. Goddard responded his 

statements were not freely and voluntarily made under the totality of the circumstances. 

The district court weighed multiple factors, considered the State's burden to establish by a 

preponderance of the evidence the voluntariness of the statements, and found Goddard's 

statements to law enforcement were voluntary and admissible.

The State correctly points out Goddard failed to contemporaneously renew his 

objection during trial or preserve the issue through a standing objection. During the jury 

trial, Maria Heimerman, a detective with the Wichita Police Department, testified she sat 

through an interview with Goddard on April 2, 2020, and into the early morning hours of 

April 3, 2020. Another Wichita Police Detective, Timothy Reynolds, also testified he 

interviewed Goddard on the night of the incident. At trial, Reynolds specifically 

discussed the questions he had asked and the answers Goddard had provided in the 

interview, without objection from Goddard. Goddard himself testified about some of the 

statements made during his police interview. Because the record reflects Goddard failed 

to timely object during the trial and preserve this issue for review on appeal, we decline 

to address the merits of his claim.

Appeal dismissed.