Title: State v. Brown
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 111690
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: March 23, 2018

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
Nos. 111,690 
         111,691 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
JERONE H. BROWN, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
1. 
 
K.S.A. 60-404 requires a timely and specific objection to the admission of 
evidence when presented at trial. 
 
2. 
 
Subsequent to State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 342, 204 P.3d 585 (2009), the three 
judicially recognized exceptions for allowing appellate review of issues not raised below 
have not been applied to absolve a party of K.S.A. 60-404 violations. 
 
3. 
 
Where exhibits are identified and treated by court and counsel as if admitted into 
evidence, despite no formal admission, on appeal they are regarded as admitted and 
K.S.A. 60-404 applies. 
 
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; BENJAMIN L. BURGESS, judge. Opinion filed March 23, 
2018. Affirmed. 
 
2 
 
 
 
Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant. 
 
Lance J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, 
and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee. 
 
The decision of the court was delivered by 
 
NUSS, C.J.: Jerone Brown appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and 
murder. Brown specifically contends the State improperly published to the jury his 
victim's autopsy photographs that he claims were not admitted into evidence. According 
to Brown, this action violated his rights to due process and an impartial jury, requiring 
reversal and remand for a new trial. 
 
We agree with the State that Brown's issue is not preserved for appellate review. 
So his convictions are affirmed. 
 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
Brown was convicted of two murders, both carried out by multiple defendants. 
The murder of Shawn Rhone took place in early January 2013. Convicted of this murder 
were brothers Jerone, Shawn, and Milo Brown, as well as their cousin Myron Peters. 
 
 
The murder of Adji Tampone occurred sometime around December 31, 2012. 
Jerone and Shawn Brown were convicted of this murder. The present appeal involves 
photographs of Tampone's autopsy. 
 
At trial, forensic pathologist and deputy coroner Dr. Timothy Gorrill gave detailed 
testimony about Tampone's autopsy and its accompanying photographs (State's Exhibits 
22A through 22H), as exemplified by the following excerpt: 
3 
 
 
 
 
"Q: Dr. Gorrill, when you conduct an autopsy, is it also documented through 
photographs? 
"A: Yes, it is. 
"Q: And is that so you can clearly describe for a jury the injuries an individual 
sustained? 
"A: Yes. 
"[State's Attorney]: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? 
"The Court: You may. 
"Q: [Sic] Show you what has been previously been [sic] shown to defense 
counsel, marked as State's Exhibit 22; specifically 22A through 22H. 
"(State's Exhibits 22A through 22H were identified). 
"Q: Would you please take a look at those to yourself. 
"A: (Witness complies.) 
"Q: Have you had an opportunity to review those photos? 
"A: Yes, I have. 
"Q: Are those photos that were taken during Adji Tampone's autopsy? 
"A: Yes. 
"Q: And would utilizing those photos assist you to show the injuries or describe 
them for a jury? 
"A: Yes. 
"Q: I prefer to use the Elmo [projector] up here. And if you could describe or 
identify the picture by its label on the back. 
"The Court: Refocus. 
"Q: All right. You can place the picture in the corner. If you could identify that 
photograph, and tell us what it is depicting." (Emphasis added.) 
 
Gorrill then identified and explained each of the State's eight autopsy photographic 
exhibits—22A through 22H—all while displaying them to the jury via the Elmo projector 
as instructed. The defense did not object during Gorrill's testimony. 
 
4 
 
 
 
Immediately after Gorrill's testimony—contained in seven pages of trial 
transcript—he was excused without any cross-examination, and the court recessed 
overnight. The next mention of these photographic exhibits came the next day, when the 
State used the testimony of a crime scene investigator to authenticate another exhibit: 
 
"[State]: Your Honor, I would move to admit 22-I. (State's Exhibit 22-I was 
offered.) 
"[Defense]: No objection. 
"The Court: I believe it's already been admitted. 
"[State]: I think 22A through G [sic] has already been admitted. 
"The Court: 22 'I' will be admitted. 
"(State's Exhibit 22-I was admitted.)" (Emphasis added.) 
 
The defense did not object to the prosecutor's characterization of the status of the autopsy 
photographic exhibits, i.e., their being previously admitted. 
 
 
The third mention of Exhibits 22A through 22H came a few days later. The jury 
had been excused and the court was conferring with both counsel when the State 
appeared to attempt to correct any deficiencies regarding admission of its exhibits: 
 
"The Court: Just one or two questions. Obviously it's just before 11:00. Take our 
noon recess. We have cross-examination. Do we have any other State's witnesses? 
"[State]: Judge, I'll compare with you the exhibits. But I do think we're going to 
rest after this witness. 
"The Court: The notes I have, I have Exhibits 1 through 33 exclusive [sic], except 
Exhibit 28, which is shown on my list as a registration card from the Surf Motel. 
"(State's Exhibit 22 A-H were offered and admitted.) 
"[State]: Judge, I believe that’s what we have as well. I'll confirm that on a break. 
I think that is where we're at; upon cross and redirect, we will be resting." (Emphasis 
added.) 
 
5 
 
 
 
Despite being present for this exchange, the defense did not object or attempt to correct 
the apparent understanding of the prosecutor and the judge that the exhibits already had 
been admitted into evidence. Brown now argues, however, that the requirements for 
admitting these photographs into evidence—the prosecutor's formal offer and the court's 
formal admission—were missing in this exchange and throughout the trial. According to 
Brown, the court reporter's parenthetical notation cannot satisfy those requirements here. 
 
 
These exhibits were again mentioned after the State's final witness finished 
testifying. After the court asked if there were any more witnesses, the State responded, 
"Judge, with the exhibits 1 through 33, minus number 28, the State would rest." The 
defense did not object to the message implicit in the State's response, i.e., that these 
exhibits had been admitted—so it was resting its case. 
 
 
The judge later told the jury, "[G]o to the deliberation room and we'll bring you 
copies of the written instructions. All the exhibits will be brought back for your 
consideration." (Emphasis added.) The defense did not object to any of the exhibits the 
judge seemingly understood to have been admitted, including the eight autopsy 
photographs (Exhibits 22A through 22H), being sent to the jury room. 
 
Ultimately, the defense filed an unsuccessful motion for a new trial and judgment 
of acquittal. The motion did not mention publication of these photographs as a claim of 
error. 
 
This court's jurisdiction is provided by K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3) (life 
sentence imposed). 
 
6 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS 
 
Issue: Publication of the autopsy photographs to the jury did not violate Brown's rights to 
due process and an impartial jury. 
 
In response to Brown's contention that Tampone's autopsy photographs were 
improperly published to the jury because they were not admitted into evidence, the State 
argues this issue was not preserved for appellate review. In the alternative, it argues that 
the autopsy photographs were admitted into evidence but even if not, any error in 
publishing them to the jury was harmless. 
 
Standard of review 
 
 
When the adequacy of the trial court's legal basis for admission of evidence is 
challenged, the appellate court will review the challenge under a de novo standard. State 
v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 487, 231 P.3d 558 (2010). 
 
Discussion 
 
It is undisputed that Brown made no objections to these autopsy photographs until 
this appeal. Our caselaw regarding the necessity of contemporaneous objections is clear. 
"The contemporaneous objection rule requires each party to make a specific and timely 
objection at trial in order to preserve evidentiary issues for appeal. K.S.A. 60-404. The 
purpose of the rule is to avoid the use of tainted evidence and thereby avoid possible 
reversal and a new trial." Dukes, 290 Kan. at 488 (citing State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 
342, 204 P.3d 585 [2009]). This rule not only gives the trial court the opportunity to 
address the issue, but practically it also constitutes "'one of necessity if litigation is ever 
to be brought to an end.'" State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 83, 563 P.2d 1012 (1977). 
7 
 
 
 
 
Subsequent to our decision in King, we have not applied the three recognized 
exceptions—for allowing appellate review of issues not raised below—to absolve a party 
of K.S.A. 60-404 violations. Dukes, 290 Kan. at 488 (identifying the exceptions and 
expressing concern that the contemporaneous objection rule "case law exceptions would 
soon swallow the general statutory rule [K.S.A. 60-404]") (citing State v. Richmond, 289 
Kan. 419, 429-30, 212 P.3d 165 [2009]). Accordingly, Brown's photographic issue is not 
preserved for our review. 290 Kan. at 488 (defendant's argument that admission of 
evidence violated his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause was not 
preserved for appeal because he failed to raise a specific and timely objection at trial 
court). 
 
Coiled within Brown's contention is an assertion that the language of K.S.A. 60-
404 indicates the statute only applies to admitted evidence. And because Brown contends 
the photographs were not ever admitted into evidence, then the requirements of 60-404 
arguably have no application. The statute provides: 
 
"A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision 
based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless there 
appears of record objection to the evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make 
clear the specific ground of objection." (Emphasis added.) 
 
We reject this assertion because the judge and both counsel certainly considered the 
photographs to have been admitted into evidence—despite no recording of a formal 
motion for their admission by the State and no recording of a formal granting of their 
admission by the court. 
 
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit provides considerable 
guidance in United States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 1997). There, the defendant 
8 
 
 
 
argued insufficient evidence existed to support his convictions because the trial exhibits 
were never formally admitted into evidence but only marked for identification. The court 
squarely rejected this argument: 
 
"We find no merit to this challenge. The exhibits were treated below, without objection, 
as if they were admitted into evidence; they are therefore deemed admitted. See United 
States v. Bizanowicz, 745 F.2d 120, 123 (1st Cir. 1984) (tape played for jury deemed 
admitted 'where at least a quo there was no doubt that [it] was admitted, notwithstanding 
the judge's failure to instruct the courtroom deputy directly to mark the tape as an exhibit' 
and appellant did not object to playing); United States v. Stapleton, 494 F.2d 1269, 1270 
(9th Cir.) (seven exhibits marked for identification but not formally offered or received 
into evidence deemed admitted where '[t]here was extensive testimony about each of 
them,' 'both parties, and the judge, acted as if they were in evidence, and the judge relied 
upon them in finding [the defendant] guilty' and 'defense counsel raised no question about 
the exhibits not being in evidence'), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1002, 95 S. Ct. 321, 42 L. Ed. 
2d 277 (1974)." 111 F.3d at 951. 
 
See United States v. McCoy, 242 F.3d 399, 402-03 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (holding that where 
the court clerk's exhibit list shows exhibits admitted and all parties understand them to be 
admitted, there is no error); Voelkel v. State, 629 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. App. 1982) (holding 
that exhibits never offered or admitted into evidence constitute no error where there was 
testimony and discussion without objection regarding the exhibits); and Newfound 
Management Corp., General Partner of Newfound Ltd. Partnership v. Sewer, 34 F. Supp. 
2d 305, 310-11 (D.V.I. 1999) (holding that exhibits would be treated as admitted into 
evidence, even though they were never formally admitted into evidence, where all 
exhibits were identified and treated as if admitted into evidence). See also Gray v. United 
States, 100 A.3d 129 (D.C. 2014) (not plain error for trial court to reach verdict relying 
on videos that had not been formally authenticated and admitted into evidence but, 
among other things, had been played in open court without objection, witnesses discussed 
9 
 
 
 
them, and defense did not object to the court's reliance on them in announcing the 
verdict) (citing Barrett, 111 F.3d at 951). 
 
Here, the State marked the autopsy photographs as exhibits, showed them to 
Brown's counsel, and introduced them. Its expert witness provided extensive testimony 
regarding the photographs while they were displayed to the jury via projector. Statements 
throughout the trial by the prosecutor and the judge reveal their understanding that these 
exhibits were admitted into evidence. The defense remained silent during these 
exchanges. And despite a number of other opportunities at the trial court, the defense 
made no issue of these exhibits until appeal to this court. Under these circumstances, this 
court regards the photographs as admitted. See Barrett, 111 F.3d at 951. 
 
The decision of the district court is affirmed.