In addressing the merits of the appeal, the prosecution urges this court to rule that a defendant's statements made at a municipal court, of no record, waives the defendant's Fifth Amendment protection in a subsequent trial to the district court on appeal. The defendant vehemently disagrees, claiming the testimony of an observer of the municipal court trial as to what he or she perceived a criminal defendant's testimony to entail is inherently unreliable and extremely prejudicial to the defendant. Neither brief cites any Kansas case related to this issue. The admission of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. An appellate court's standard of review regarding a trial court's admission of evidence, subject to exclusionary rules, is abuse of discretion.
Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.
If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. Here, however, the district court gave no reason for suppressing the prosecution's evidence except a statement that an appeal from a municipal court of no record is a de novo proceeding. As such, the question before this court is whether the law permits the prosecution to admit statements made by the defendant at a municipal court trial without record in a subsequent de novo trial on appeal to the district court. This is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. The City argues the district court made its ruling based upon the privilege against self-incrimination.