Title: State v. Galloway
Citation: 235 Kan. 70, 680 P.2d 268
Docket Number: 55,370
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: March 24, 1984

235 Kan. 70 (1984)
680 P.2d 268
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
SHERMAN L. GALLOWAY, Appellee.
No. 55,370

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 24, 1984.
*71 Robin Fowler, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Mary D. Prewitt, assistant district attorney, Jerry L. Harper, district attorney, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, were on the briefs for appellant.
Jeffrey O. Heeb, of Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an interlocutory appeal by the State pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603 from an order of the district court suppressing and excluding evidence. The Court of Appeals dismissed this interlocutory appeal on the basis the order appealed from was not final. This court granted the State's petition for review.
Defendant Sherman L. Galloway is charged with rape (K.S.A. 21-3502); aggravated sodomy (K.S.A. 21-3506); aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427); and kidnapping (K.S.A. 21-3420). This is not the first time this case has been before this court on an interlocutory appeal by the State. (State v. Galloway, 232 Kan. 87, 652 P.2d 673 [1982], hereinafter referred to as Galloway I.)
The complex factual situation underlying this case was stated in Galloway I as follows:
This court in Galloway I reversed the district court's suppression of the seized keys and the Court of Appeal's affirmance thereof and remanded the case for further proceedings. The issue in Galloway I focused upon the State's right to seize the ring of keys during the execution of the search warrant. As indicated in the statement of facts, the charges relative to victims Ms. R and Ms. G, while contained in one complaint, had been severed. Defendant has been convicted of the charges relative to victim Ms. R and the conviction has been affirmed by this court in an unpublished opinion. (State v. Galloway, No. 54,304, filed March 26, 1983.) The issues herein solely relate to the charges pending relative to victim Ms. G.
After the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings, certain evidentiary motions were heard. The district *73 court sustained defendant's motions: (1) to suppress a composite photograph of a completed "Identi-Kit"; and (2) the photographic lineup identification of the defendant by the victim. Additionally, the district court held, on the State's motion in limine, the State would not be permitted to introduce any evidence relative to observation of the keys by defendant's wife. (Whether these rulings were temporary or final is one of the issues on appeal and the facts relative thereto will be set forth in detail in the discussion of that issue.) The State then filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603 as to all three adverse rulings.
I. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
The first jurisdictional issue is whether the evidentiary rulings herein are the proper subjects for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603. It should be noted the district court did not base any of the complained-of rulings on violation of defendant's constitutional rights. K.S.A. 22-3603 provides:
Defendant, in reliance on State v. Boling, 5 Kan. App.2d 371, 617 P.2d 102 (1980), contends K.S.A. 22-3603 authorizes an interlocutory appeal by the State from orders of suppression only when the evidence is suppressed as having been obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals, in Boling, held the statute did not authorize interlocutory appeals by the State from rulings excluding evidence predicated upon statutory rules of evidence.
The State argues the Court of Appeals' construction of K.S.A. 22-3603, as expressed in Boling, is too narrow and the statute authorizes interlocutory appeals in any situation where the complained-of exclusion of evidence substantially impairs the State's ability to prosecute the case.
This precise issue has been decided in State v. Newman, 235 Kan. 29, 680 P.2d 257 (1984). In Newman this court stated:
We conclude the State has made an adequate showing the complained-of exclusion of evidence substantially impairs the State's ability to prosecute the case. Accordingly, we further conclude the challenge to jurisdiction asserted in this issue is without merit.
In the second jurisdictional issue defendant contends the complained-of rulings excluding evidence were temporary rather than final orders and, hence, are not proper subjects for appellate review. By virtue of the nature of this issue, the relevant facts must be set forth in considerable detail.
After the mandate was received in Galloway I, the State filed a motion requesting: (1) all pending motions of defendant be set for hearing; and (2) the case be set for trial. One of defendant's motions sought suppression of the police investigation composite picture (Identi-Kit) of the alleged rapist.
On January 7, 1983, the district court set a trial date of February 7, 1983. On January 27, 1983, the State filed a motion raising an issue whether statements made by the defendant's wife to a police officer, concerning the wife's observation of the university keys at defendant's residence, were protected by marital privilege. On February 2, 1983, defendant filed a motion to suppress photographic lineup identification evidence and requested an order in limine excluding in-court identification testimony.
All motions then pending were called for hearing on February 4, 1983. The State had issued subpoenas for witnesses to be present on the various evidentiary issues. The witnesses were present. For some unexplained reason only legal arguments were heard at the February 4 hearing, and no witnesses were called to testify. At the conclusion of the hearing the district court reserved judgment on the defendant's motions to suppress the Identi-Kit photographs and the photographic lineup identification. Relative to the marital privilege issue, the district court indicated it saw no difficulty with defendant's wife testifying as to observation of the keys but, in essence, would defer any ruling thereon until defense counsel submitted some authority.
*75 Sometime during the weekend of February 5/6, 1983, the district court notified all parties that, due to a snowstorm and resulting poor parking conditions at the Douglas County Court-house, the trial would be continued for one week from Monday, February 7, to Monday, February 14, 1983.
On Tuesday, February 8, 1983, defendant filed a motion seeking his discharge because of an alleged violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3402. Later that day the district court assembled the parties concerned and held a hearing on the speedy trial motion. The district court denied defendant's motion for discharge. Then, without prior notice to the State, the district court took up defendant's motions to suppress the police investigation composite photograph and photographic lineup identification, and the State's motion pertaining to the wife's observation of the university keys at the couple's residence.
During the February 8 hearing, the district court sustained defendant's motion to suppress the Identi-Kit photograph and the photographic lineup identification. Additionally, the district court held testimony of the wife's observation of the keys would be excluded on the basis of marital privilege. The specific language utilized by the district court is crucial to the determination of this issue and must be set forth in considerable detail.
In commencing the February 8, 1983, hearing, the district court complimented the defense attorney, Mr. Heeb, for his timely filing of the speedy trial motion as it made it possible for the court to have a hearing and the court wanted also to "dispose of some of the other matters in this case that I have now had time to reflect upon." (Emphasis supplied.) After denying defendant's speedy trial motion, the district court announced:
The district court informed the parties the composite photograph (Identi-Kit) was "properly excluded as hearsay." The court then considered an issue involving K.S.A. 60-455 (other crimes or civil wrongs evidence), which is not an issue on appeal.
*76 After addressing the K.S.A. 60-455 issue, the district court ruled on the State's motion relative to the propriety of the wife's testimony on her observation of the university keys at the marital residence, stating:
The district court then took up the defendant's motion to suppress the prosecutrix's pretrial photographic lineup identification of the defendant as her attacker. The battle on this issue had been fought in part on testimony by the prosecutrix at the preliminary hearing relative to her in-court identification of defendant wherein the following had occurred on direct examination:
"A. Right.
"Q. Okay.
"A. Out of a crowd like that.
"Q. Okay.
The district court in ruling on the suppression of the photographic lineup motion stated:
It should be noted, for the sake of accuracy, it is undisputed that eight rather than six photos were involved in the photographic identification.
The district court concluded its activities in disposing of the various motions by declaring:
The assistant district attorney representing the State advised the court she had not been told that motions other than the motion for dismissal would be taken up at the hearing. The court responded that it had not thought it would be able to take up the various pretrial motions until "during the trial," but the one-week postponement in the trial due to the snowstorm had given the court an opportunity to "research and reflect upon" the various motions. The district court continued:
At the previous hearing, the State had argued the matter fully and had nothing further it could present on the issues. The State has advised the witnesses, if called, would not have added any new facts to alter the ruling as to the motion in limine.
The following day, February 9, 1983, the State filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal with the Douglas County District Court. The appeal was docketed with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts on Thursday, February 10, 1983. On the same day the appeal was filed, February 9, the State also filed two requests for transcripts. In its first request the State sought transcripts on the hearings held on February 4 and 8, 1983. In its second request the State sought transcripts on the preliminary hearing testimony of the prosecutrix and Detective Mike Hall.
In its interlocutory appeal, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603, the State seeks appellate review of the district court's orders excluding *79 evidence of the police investigation composite photograph (Identi-Kit), the photographic lineup identification, and the testimony of defendant's wife pertaining to her observation of university keys at the couple's residence.
On Thursday, February 10, 1983, the trial judge learned of the State's interlocutory appeal through a radio news report. The court, on the same day, then directed both counsel to appear before it. The court made inquiry of the State as to whether it had, in fact, filed an interlocutory appeal. When the State responded in the affirmative, the court stated:
Little would be gained by inclusion herein of a detailed recitation of what transpired during the balance of the February 10, 1983, conferences (there were two). It is obvious the district court was agitated over the State having filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and was confused regarding the nature of a Jackson-Denno proceeding. Further, the district court was operating on the belief the State could seek an appeal only on a question reserved pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3). Additionally, on February 10, 1983, the district court made statements to the effect its rulings entered two days previously were temporary, rather than final orders. Moreover, representations were made by the district court it could just cancel its previous orders. Without dwelling further on the February 10, 1983, conferences, we can understand why the State felt it had no alternative but to proceed with its pending interlocutory appeal. We also note the district court's proceedings on February 10, 1983, are apparently contrary to K.S.A. 22-3603 which explicitly provides further proceedings in the trial court shall be stayed pending determination of an interlocutory appeal. See also Supreme Court Rule 4.02(e), 232 Kan. cviii.
In dismissing the State's appeal in this case because there were allegedly no final orders to appeal from, the Court of Appeals emphasized the oral orders of February 8, 1983, had not *80 been journalized. In State v. Bohannon, 3 Kan. App.2d 448, 596 P.2d 190 (1979), the Court of Appeals stated:
The two elements of Bohannon have been met in this case. First, the orders of suppression appeared on the record  a transcript was made of the February 8, 1983, hearing. Second, the district court advised the parties there was no need to journalize the orders as long as the litigants understood "what they are because we have them clearly on the record, and I will have them in front of me here."
It is clear from the record of the proceedings on February 8, 1983, the three rulings relative to exclusion of evidence: (1) were final orders; (2) substantially impaired the State's ability to prosecute the case (as previously held); and (3) are proper subjects for an interlocutory appeal by the State pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603.
Having disposed of the jurisdictional issues, we shall consider the substantive questions presented in this appeal.
The alleged attack upon Ms. G. occurred on May 12, 1981. The following day she was interviewed by Detective Donoho of the Lawrence Police Department for the purpose of assembling a composite (Identi-Kit) likeness of her assailant.
The procedure utilized in assembling the composite was described in detail by Ms. G in her testimony at the preliminary hearing held herein. The Identi-Kit consisted of many transparent overlays each depicting a different facial characteristic or hair style. Detective Donoho initially presented Ms. G with a composite which the prosecutrix characterized as a "Joe Average" portrait. Ms. G was then asked what was wrong with it and overlays were added or deleted in accordance with her series of responses. This procedure took from fifteen to thirty minutes. A photograph was taken of the end product and has *81 been designated State's Exhibit No. 9. Ms. G identified Exhibit No. 9 as accurately depicting the final Identi-Kit composite. Illustrative of Ms. G's testimony relative to the construction of the composite is the following excerpt from defense counsel's recross-examination of Ms. G at the preliminary hearing:
"A. Yeah, I think so.
"Q. Is the same true for the nose?
"A. Yeah, we didn't play with the nose too much.
"Q. Okay. And the mouth, is that true?
"A. Right.
"A. Yeah, I think so."
The defendant's motion to suppress the photograph of the composite contended:
*82 In sustaining defendant's motion to suppress the photograph of the composite, the district court stated:
See Annot., Admissibility in Evidence of Composite Picture or Sketch Produced by Police to Identify Offender, 42 A.L.R.3d 1217.
In State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4, 422 P.2d 898 (1967), the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree robbery. The victims of the robberies were able to identify defendant in a police photographic lineup. In affirming the conviction, this court stated:
Continuing:
Different jurisdictions have varying views on the nature and admissibility of composite identification. People v. Rogers, 81 Ill. 2d 571, 411 N.E.2d 223 (1980), which cites State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4, contains an in-depth analysis of this area of the law.
*83 In Rogers defendant was convicted of armed robbery. At trial a photocopy of a composite (Identi-Kit) photograph was admitted into evidence to corroborate the identification testimony given by the prosecuting witness. On appeal the Illinois Court of Appeals reversed defendant's conviction upon the ground it was error for the trial court to have admitted the composite into evidence. People v. Rogers, 75 Ill. App.3d 866, 394 N.E.2d 813 (1979). The Illinois Supreme Court granted the State leave to appeal, pursuant to Rule 315, 73 Ill. 2d 475, and reversed the ruling of the Illinois Court of Appeals, reinstating the defendant's conviction.
As in the instant action, the victim of the crime assisted the police in making a composite image of his assailant. The victim also identified the defendant in a photographic lineup. At trial the State introduced a photocopy of the composite created and the defendant objected thereto. The complaining witness admitted, as here, he was not in total agreement with the sketch. 81 Ill. 2d  at 573-74. The police officer who assembled the composite testified to the description provided by the witness and the procedures employed in assembling the composite. 81 Ill. 2d  at 574.
In reinstating defendant's conviction, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the thesis that composite photographs were hearsay and therefore inadmissible, stating:
We believe the rationale of the Illinois Supreme Court expressed in People v. Rogers, 81 Ill. 2d 571, is sound and it is consistent with our holding in State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4.
The composite was made at the direction of Ms. G and she fully identified the photograph as an accurate depiction of the completed Identi-Kit composite. There was nothing so unduly suggestive relative to the creation of the Identi-Kit composite, as to require its suppression on constitutional grounds.
As for the evidentiary grounds on which exclusion is sought herein, an Identi-Kit composite is not inadmissible hearsay. Rather than substantive evidence, it is prior identification evidence introduced to corroborate the witness' in-court identification of the accused. The means or manner in which the extrajudicial identification is made relates to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Following People v. Rogers, 81 Ill. 2d 571; State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4.
We conclude the district court erred in excluding the photograph of the Identi-Kit composite.
On July 16, 1981, slightly more than two months after the alleged rape and sodomy, Ms. G went to the Douglas County Judicial and Law Enforcement Center to view a photographic lineup. The photographs were of eight black males who were quite similar in appearance. In fact, when first shown the photographs Ms. G commented to the effect, "You're not making it easy." After several minutes of studying the photographs, Ms. G picked out defendant's photograph and said she thought that man was her attacker, but she was not one hundred percent sure. *88 Ms. G apparently knew there was a man in custody on a rape charge who had the missing keys.
At the preliminary hearing held in late July, 1981, Ms. G was asked, on direct examination by the State, about the attack upon her and then asked if she could identify her attacker. Although what transpired is set forth earlier in this opinion, we repeat the following excerpt from the preliminary hearing transcript for convenience:
"A. Right.
"Q. Okay.
"A. Out of a crowd like that.
"Q. Okay.
On cross-examination defense counsel inquired of Ms. G as follows:
"A. Yeah  well, I doubt that I would be able to."
*89 A year and a half after the preliminary hearing, more than three months after this court's opinion in Galloway I, 232 Kan. 87, and less than one week before trial was scheduled to commence, defendant filed a motion to suppress the State's photographic lineup evidence on the basis it was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. In granting the motion, the district court stated:
The issue before the trial court was whether the photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive. It is difficult to see how the witness' statement relative to her difficulty with in-court identification occurring at the subsequent preliminary hearing has any relevance to the issue.
In Kansas a pretrial identification of a defendant by use of photographs will be suppressed only if the identification procedure is so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. State v. Chiles, 226 Kan. 140, 143-44, 595 P.2d 1130 (1979); State v. Wilson, 221 Kan. 92, 95, 558 P.2d 141 (1976); State v. Mitchell, 220 Kan. 700, 556 P.2d 874 (1976); State v. Nesmith, 220 Kan. 146, 551 P.2d 896 (1976).
On cross-examination at preliminary hearing, Ms. G testified relative to the photographic lineup as follows:
"A. No, I didn't 
"A. Mike Hall, only after I asked him.
"Q. Only after you asked him?
"A. Yeah.
The police officer present at the photographic lineup, Detective Mike Hall, corroborated Ms. G's testimony relative to the photographic identification.
In State v. Ponds, 227 Kan. 627, 608 P.2d 946 (1980), this court, in affirming a conviction for aggravated robbery, was confronted with an allegation of suggestive, pretrial photographic identification. In Ponds the detective in charge of the investigation phoned the victim and informed her the police had arrested the man they believed to be the robber. 227 Kan. at 628. The detective then went to the victim's home and showed seven photographs to the prosecutrix. Two of the photographs were of the defendant, one recent and the other seven years old. The detective, in presenting the photographs asked: "Which one of these men is the one that robbed you? Can you identify any of them as being the one that robbed you?" 227 Kan. at 628. On appeal defendant contended the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the prosecutrix's photographic and subsequent court-room identification. The trial court ruled the photographic lineup identification was admissible and refused to suppress any future in-court identification. 227 Kan. at 629. The trial court did suppress the prosecutrix's preliminary hearing identification on other grounds. 227 Kan. at 629. Defendant argued the police *91 procedures, especially the comments of the detective, rendered the photographic identification so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification. 227 Kan. at 628. In rejecting defendant's appeal this court held:
Additionally, the court found no merit in defendant's contention the photographic lineup was rendered impermissibly suggestive by the detective's comment the police had a person in custody who they believed had robbed the victim.
We conclude there was no competent evidence presented upon which the district court could have determined the photographic identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The order of the district court excluding evidence of the photographic lineup is reversed.
K.S.A. 60-423(b) provides:
K.S.A. 60-428(a) provides:
On January 27, 1983, the State filed a motion with the district court in which the State sought permission to inquire of defendant's wife relative to her observation of certain University of Kansas keys recovered at defendant's residence by Detective Hall while executing a search warrant issued in connection with another crime. During the police investigation, Mrs. Galloway purportedly made a comment to Detective Hall concerning her observance of the keys at defendant's residence. Allegedly she had observed the keys over a two to three month period following the alleged rape and sodomy of the prosecutrix. Detective Hall had found the keys in the back of a nightstand drawer which was full of other material. The nightstand was located in a bedroom at the marital residence.
The district court held that no evidence could be introduced relative to the wife's observation of the keys, based on marital privilege.
Marital privilege is thoroughly discussed in State v. Newman, 235 Kan. 29, 680 P.2d 257 (1984). In Newman we held:
The wife's alleged observation of the keys in the back of a crowded drawer lacks any indicia of a communication. The location of the keys would support an inference of intended concealment and at least establish no intention to transmit or repose confidential information in the wife. The observation alleged herein is clearly outside the ambit of marital privilege.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal is reversed. The judgment of the district court excluding evidence is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.