1

No. 117,861

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

DEIJAUN D. LEANNDRE LAMB,

Defendant,

(PATTRICK TOWNER),

Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.

An appellate court should consider a case that would otherwise be moot if it (1) is 

of statewide interest and of the nature that public policy demands a decision, such as 

those issues that exonerate the defendant; (2) remains a real controversy; or (3) is capable 

of repetition.

2.

A contempt finding for failure to testify in a case that is subsequently dismissed 

without prejudice is an issue subject to repetition in light of the fact that the case may be 

refiled and the witness again required to testify.

3.

To present a compulsion defense, just like any other defense, there must be 

evidence to support it. And if the district court refuses to allow the introduction of a 

litigant's evidence related to the defense, the litigant must make a proffer of the evidence 

to preserve the issue on appeal.
2

4.

A judge has no independent responsibility to seek out evidence of duress from a 

recalcitrant witness. The witness has the affirmative duty to inform the appropriate 

authorities and the court of any threats.

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; DAVID DEBENHAM, judge. Opinion filed January 10, 2020. 

Affirmed.

Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant.

Steven J. Obermeier, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for 

appellee.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., LEBEN and SCHROEDER, JJ.

ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J.: The State of Kansas charged Deijaun D. Leanndre Lamb 

with the murder of Geovani Plakio and the attempted murder of Pattrick Towner. Towner 

was called to testify at Lamb's preliminary hearing and identify Lamb as the shooter. 

Deputies transported Towner and Lamb to the courthouse together and then placed them 

in the same holding cell. When called to the stand, Towner refused to testify. The district 

court explained to Towner that the court could hold Towner in contempt if he refused to 

testify and gave him several opportunities to answer the State's questions. Towner refused 

to do so. The district court held Towner in contempt and sentenced him to six months'

imprisonment.

On appeal, Towner argues he was threatened into not testifying and the district 

court erred by not holding an in camera hearing, without Lamb present, so that Towner 

could explain why he was not testifying. Because we find that a judge has no duty to sua 

sponte hold an in camera hearing to determine if a witness is fearful to testify when the 
3

witness makes no such request, we affirm the district court's order finding Towner in 

direct criminal contempt of court. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In October 2016, the State charged Lamb with first-degree murder for the killing 

of Plakio and the attempted killing of Towner and Dominique Lee Boyles. According to 

the probable cause affidavit, Towner—during two interviews with police—stated that he 

was driving the car in which Plakio was shot, that he witnessed the shooting, and that 

Lamb killed Plakio.

At Lamb's preliminary hearing, Towner denied knowing Lamb and said that he 

would not be able to identify him if he saw him on the street. The prosecutor asked the 

court to recess so that she could speak with Towner outside the courtroom. The court 

granted the request. After returning to court, the prosecutor once again asked Towner 

whether he knew Lamb. Towner replied that he did not "want to get involved with this 

case, so I'll just leave it at that." Towner stated that he was refusing to testify.

The prosecutor asked the district court to hold Towner in contempt. The court 

asked Towner's attorney whether Towner had any Fifth Amendment privilege that would 

allow him to not testify. Towner's attorney replied that he was unaware of any privilege. 

After Towner spent some time speaking with his attorney, the court ordered Towner to 

testify and asked whether he understood that the court could hold him in contempt for 

refusing to do so. The court informed Towner that he could be held in jail for up to six 

months if there was a contempt proceeding and the court found him guilty. Towner stated 

that he understood but again refused to testify. The court gave Towner another 

opportunity to testify but he refused to do so. The court found Towner in contempt and 

ordered him incarcerated.
4

The court continued the case a few days and at the next hearing Towner was again 

called to testify. After speaking with his attorney, Towner told the court that he was "just 

going to stay in contempt of Court." The court ordered that deputies return Towner to jail. 

Lamb's attorney moved to dismiss the charges. The prosecutor asked for a continuance to 

try to convince Towner to cooperate. The prosecutor informed the court that she had 

spoken with Towner the night before he was called to testify at the first hearing and that 

then he was willing to testify. But on the way to his first appearance to testify, deputies 

transported Towner from jail to the courthouse in the same vehicle as Lamb and then 

placed him in a holding cell in the courthouse with Lamb. The prosecutor believed that 

Towner had been threatened by someone into not testifying against Lamb, but she could 

not present any evidence to support her belief. The court agreed to continue the case a 

few more days to give Towner another chance to purge himself of the contempt.

At the final hearing, Towner refused to testify and asked to remain in contempt of 

court. The court found a lack of probable cause against Lamb and dismissed the case 

without prejudice. Towner appeals the court's order of contempt.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Towner argues the district court erred by failing to provide an in

camera hearing, outside Lamb's presence, for Towner to explain why he would not 

testify. But before we get to the merits of his claim, we must determine whether 

procedural bars prevent us from reaching the merits. The State asserts that Towner's 

appeal is moot and that, even if it is not, the court cannot consider issues raised for the 

first time on appeal.
5

Towner's appeal is not moot.

The parties agree that Towner has completed his six-month sentence for contempt. 

The court can dismiss an appeal as moot if '""it is clearly and convincingly shown the 

actual controversy has ended, the only judgment that could be entered would be 

ineffectual for any purpose, and it would not impact any of the parties' rights."'" State v. 

Williams, 298 Kan. 1075, 1082, 319 P.3d 528 (2014). The State argues that because 

Towner has completed his sentence any judgment entered on his behalf would be 

ineffectual.

Because mootness is a doctrine of court policy, which is rooted in court precedent, 

appellate review of the issue is unlimited. State v. Hilton, 295 Kan. 845, 849, 286 P.3d 

871 (2012).

Twenty-five years ago, this court addressed whether an appeal is moot because the 

appellant has finished serving his or her sentence for contempt. In State v. Flanagan, 19 

Kan. App. 2d 528, 529-30, 873 P.2d 195 (1994), we found that such an appeal is not 

moot. The court reasoned: 

"[T]he judicial system is an integral part of American life, and a criminal contempt 

conviction cannot help but affect a defendant's life if he or she appears before a judge 

who becomes aware of that conviction. That fact, and other possible collateral 

consequences of this conviction, are too obvious to declare this appeal moot simply 

because defendant cannot be subjected to additional jail time." 19 Kan. App. 2d at 529-

30.

The State argues that despite the court's concerns in Flanigan, a contempt citation 

is not a criminal conviction, nor does it appear on a defendant's criminal history. Any 

collateral consequences that may result are speculative at best. Towner simply asks us to 
6

follow the lead of Flanigan. He fails to advise us of any specific collateral consequences 

that may result from the court's contempt finding.

Generally, appellate courts in Kansas do not decide moot questions or render 

advisory opinions. State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837, Syl. ¶ 2, 286 P.3d 866 (2012).

But because the mootness doctrine is court made, it is also subject to court-recognized 

exceptions which have been judicially created since Flanigan. An appellate court should 

consider a case that would otherwise be moot if it "(1) is of statewide interest and of the 

nature that public policy demands a decision, such as those issues that exonerate the 

defendant; (2) remains a real controversy; or (3) is capable of repetition." State v. 

Hollister, 300 Kan. 458, 458-59, 329 P.3d 1220 (2014). Towner fails to assert the 

application of any of the exceptions.

Even so, because we are not convinced that there are any ongoing consequences 

that may result from the district court's finding of contempt, the first two exceptions do 

not apply. But we are concerned that this issue may be subject to repetition, not only in 

other similar cases in the future—albeit rare—but it could be repeated in this case. The 

charges against Lamb were dismissed by the court without prejudice following a 

preliminary hearing. If the State is somehow able to offer Towner protection or gather 

additional evidence beyond Towner's statements to police, it could refile the murder 

charges. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5107(a) (no time limitation on the filing of murder 

charges). Towner could be back in the same position. As a result, this case is not moot.

Towner has preserved his claim of error.

Towner raises only one claim of error on appeal. He argues that because the court 

had information from the prosecutor that suggested Towner was being threatened by 

Lamb, the court had a duty to discuss the issue with Towner in camera before finding him 

in contempt. Towner's attorney was with him each time the court ordered him to testify 
7

and Towner refused. His attorney spoke to him outside the presence of the judge and 

prosecutor both times. At no time did Towner request an in camera discussion with the 

judge. 

The State argues that Towner has failed to preserve this issue for appeal because 

there was no contemporaneous request made to discuss the reasons for his refusal with 

the court. Towner responds by framing this as solely a sufficiency of the evidence claim 

which he can raise for the first time on appeal, citing State v. Farmer, 285 Kan. 541, Syl. 

¶ 1, 175 P.3d 221 (2008) ("There is no requirement that a criminal defendant challenge 

the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court in order to preserve the question for 

appeal.").

The law in Kansas is clear. "If the issue was not raised below, there must be an 

explanation why the issue is properly before the court. A party failing to explain why an 

issue being raised for the first time on appeal is properly before the court risks having that 

issue deemed waived or abandoned." Williams, 298 Kan. 1075, Syl. ¶ 4. But we are 

willing to accept Towner's position that his claim is more like a sufficiency of the 

evidence argument than an evidentiary error. In essence, he argues that because the judge 

disregarded that he was under duress and did not provide Towner a safe environment to 

set forth his defense, the evidence was insufficient to find him in contempt. Although we 

agree this is a close call on whether Towner properly preserved his claim of error, we are 

willing to proceed to the merits given the possibility that Towner could be in the same 

position, in this case, in the future.

The district court did not err in holding Towner in contempt of court.

Towner does not dispute that he refused to follow a court order. Instead, he argues 

the district court should have provided him with a chance to explain his fear without 

Lamb present. Towner also does not challenge the actual sanction imposed, six months in 
8

jail. Accordingly, we review de novo whether the alleged conduct was contemptuous 

given all the circumstances. State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747, 754, 234 P.3d 1 (2010).

There are at least three reasons Towner's claim of error fails.

1. Towner failed to make a proffer of the evidence he wanted the court to consider.

Compulsion is a statutory defense in Kansas.

"(a) A person is not guilty of a crime other than murder or voluntary 

manslaughter by reason of conduct which such person performs under the compulsion or 

threat of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, if such person reasonably 

believes that death or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon such person or upon such 

person's spouse, parent, child, brother or sister if such person does not perform such 

conduct.

"(b) The defense provided by this section is not available to a person who 

intentionally or recklessly places such person's self in a situation in which such person 

will be subjected to compulsion or threat." K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5206.

To present a compulsion defense, just like any other defense, there must be 

evidence to support it. And if the court refuses to allow the introduction of a litigant's 

evidence related to the defense, the litigant must make a proffer. In other words, the party 

must show the court what the party would present if the court were to allow the evidence. 

See K.S.A. 60-405 (no decision can be "reversed, by reason of the erroneous exclusion of 

evidence unless it appears of record that the proponent of the evidence either made 

known the substance of the evidence in a form and by a method approved by the judge, or 

indicated the substance of the expected evidence by questions indicating the desired 

answers"). A defendant's failure to proffer excluded evidence makes it impossible for an 

appellate court to determine whether a legally erroneous exclusion was harmless. State v. 

Redick, 307 Kan. 797, Syl. ¶ 4, 414 P.3d 1207 (2018).
9

Towner essentially asserts that the court should have allowed him to proffer 

evidence, in camera, to the court about his defense of compulsion. But neither he nor his 

attorney ever requested to do so, even though the court gave them several opportunities to 

talk outside the presence of Lamb. The judge implored Towner, "Do you have any other 

reason, other than the fact that that you do not wish to be involved in this case?"

(Emphasis added.) Towner replied, "No, your honor." His failure to make a proffer is 

fatal to his claim of error.

2. The cases Towner summarily relies on do not support his position.

It is essential when a litigant cites cases in an appellate brief in support of his or 

her position that the cases support the litigant's position. Towner cites three federal cases 

to support his argument. But on close review the cases do not favor Towner. We will 

examine each.

A federal district court held Mark Gravel in contempt for his refusal to testify 

before a grand jury. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 605 F.2d 750, 751 (5th Cir. 1979). 

Gravel explained, during an in camera discussion with the judge, that he would not testify 

because he was being actively threatened. On appeal, the court held that the district court 

did not err in finding Gravel in contempt. Even if the court considered fear to be a 

legitimate factor against a finding of contempt, it did not find that Gravel had raised a 

sufficient defense. 605 F.2d at 752-53. The government had offered to protect Gravel and 

he had refused the protection, instead choosing to not testify. Gravel's case does not hold 

that a court must recognize fear as an affirmative defense to a finding of contempt. It 

simply holds that the evidence was insufficient to support his defense given the State's 

offer of protection. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals also distinguished duress as a 

reason for the refusal to testify versus duress as a mitigation factor in determining a 

sanction. 605 F.2d at 752-53. "In both civil and criminal contempt cases this circuit has 

held that fear for personal and family safety is not a defense to a charge arising from 
10

refusal of a witness to testify. We have, however, held that such fear is a legitimate factor 

in mitigation." 605 F.2d at 752.

In United States v. Patrick, 542 F.2d 381, 386-88 (7th Cir. 1976), the appellate 

court held duress could be a defense to contempt but that Leonard Patrick failed to 

present evidence supporting his case. According to Patrick, he and his family were 

threatened about his possible testimony. But the court noted: "Patrick made no attempt to 

inform the court as to his fears, the basis therefor, and the steps he had taken to alleviate 

the alleged danger so that he might comply with the law." 542 F.2d at 388. The court 

cited with approval the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Shannon v. United 

States, 76 F.2d 490, 493 (10th Cir. 1935). Patrick, 542 F.2d at 388.

"'Coercion which will excuse the commission of a criminal act must be 

immediate and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or 

serious bodily injury if the act is not done. One who has full opportunity to avoid the act 

without danger of that kind cannot invoke the doctrine of coercion.'" 542 F.2d at 386-87.

The court noted: "'[A] veiled threat of future unspecified harm . . . is not the equivalent 

of an immediate threat of death or severe bodily injury.'" Patrick, 542 F.2d at 388.

The third and final case Towner relies on found that fear for personal or family 

safety is a mitigating factor when determining the sentence for a contempt, but that 

"[f]ear for personal and family safety . . . is no defense to the crime of refusing to testify."

United States v. Gomez, 553 F.2d 958, 959 (5th Cir. 1977).

None of these cases support Towner's argument. Like the defendant in Patrick, 

Towner failed to inform the court of his fears. See Patrick, 542 F.2d at 388. Without 

informing the court or State, Towner cannot expect an offer of protection like the 

defendant in In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Even if Towner did inform the court or State 
11

that someone had threatened him and the State failed to extend an offer of protection, that 

does not mean that the court could not hold Towner in contempt for his refusal to testify. 

See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 605 F.2d at 752-53 (fear for personal and family 

safety is not a defense to a charge arising from refusal of a witness to testify). A witness 

has a responsibility to "take the reasonable steps available in an attempt to extricate 

himself from the apparent danger." Patrick, 542 F.2d at 388. This includes an affirmative 

duty to inform the appropriate government authorities and the court of the threat. 542 

F.2d at 388. Although the prosecutor suspected Towner was being threatened, she had no 

proof. And Towner refused to provide any.

Finally, the district court cannot be expected to consider whether threats against 

Towner should lead to a lighter sentence for contempt when Towner did not inform the 

court that he was threatened. See Gomez, 553 F.2d at 959. Even so, Towner does not

challenge the sanction here, only the sufficiency of evidence for the finding of contempt. 

In sum, because Towner presents no caselaw to support his claims, we must conclude 

there is none.

3. A judge has no independent responsibility to seek out evidence of duress from a 

recalcitrant witness.

Towner believes it was error for the judge to take "no action to ensure that Towner 

was not refusing to testify due to threats from Lamb." Yet Towner presents no authority 

for this central proposition—that a judge must independently and sua sponte marshal the 

resources necessary for a witness to claim a defense of duress or coercion, particularly 

when, as here, the witness has his own legal counsel at each hearing. As the State points 

out, the overwhelming majority of courts to address the issue have held that fear does not 

provide a basis for a witness' refusal to testify. See Howell v. State, 465 Md. 548, 563

n.13, 214 A.3d 1128 (2019) (citing 12 cases from 12 jurisdictions). So necessarily, a 

requirement that the court sua sponte investigate whether a witness is being placed in fear 
12

would serve no purpose. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stressed in Patrick, it is 

the witness who has the affirmative duty to inform the appropriate government authority 

and the court of any threats. 542 F.2d at 388.

The district court's decision finding Towner in direct criminal contempt of court is 

affirmed.

Affirmed.