Opinion ID: 2460096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Resolution of Factual Elements

Text: The first aspect of this statement is the requirement that a judgment of acquittal be `a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.' Whorton, 225 Kan. at 254, 589 P.2d 610 (quoting Scott, 437 U.S. at 97, 98 S.Ct. 2187); see Kansas Law Review Criminal Procedure Survey, 58 Kan. L.Rev. 1311, 1412 (June 2010) (Judgments of acquittal resolve some or all of the factual elements of the case, and the law protects defendants from double jeopardy by preventing the prosecution from appealing these judgments.); 15B Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3919.6, p. 690 (2d ed. 1992) ([T]he fact that the order is characterized as an acquittal does not defeat appeal if it does not rest on factual determination of an element of guilt or innocence.). This general statement is supported by the Kansas statute that authorizes judgments of acquittal, K.S.A. 22-3419, which provides in pertinent part: (1) The court on motion of a defendant or on its own motion shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more crimes charged in the complaint, indictment or information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such crime or crimes. If a defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution is not granted, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right. (Emphasis added.) This court emphasized the requirement imposed by the italicized language in its analysis of whether the order at issue in Whorton, 225 Kan. 251, 589 P.2d 610, was an order of dismissal or acquittal. There, the defendant was charged with 16 counts of felony theft for depositing checks made to the order of a corporate entity, Bi-Agra Association, into a bank account opened by the defendant in the name of an unrelated but similarly named corporate entity, Bi-Agra of America Association. During the trial, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal after the jury began hearing testimony from one witness. In deciding the motion, the district court heard counsels' arguments outside the presence of the jury. The parties stipulated that a total of 14 corporations using as a part of their name Bi-Agra and Association were in existence and chartered in the state of Kansas. Defense counsel argued that since the individual check drawees, who were endorsed as witnesses, had been stricken from the amended complaint, the State could not prove ownership of the checks in the proper Bi-Agra Association because officers of the 14 various associations were not endorsed as material witnesses. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, stating the charges were not specific enough to allow for an adequate defense. On appeal, this court took note of the contention that the district court based its decision on a review of the checks offered as evidence, as well as the stipulations concerning the existence of numerous associations bearing the name Bi-Agra. The Whorton court concluded that the determination of which Bi-Agra Association owned the checks involved questions of fact. Consequently, this court concluded that the trial court, correct or not, did resolve factual issues in the instant case. Whorton, 225 Kan. at 254, 589 P.2d 610. This was significant because where a motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the proper motion should be for a judgment of acquittal. Whorton, 225 Kan. at 254, 589 P.2d 610 (citing United States v. Ambers, 416 F.2d 942 [5th Cir.1969], cert. denied 396 U.S. 1039, 90 S.Ct. 686, 24 L.Ed.2d 683 [1970]).