Opinion ID: 2570814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Strict-Elements Test

Text: In raising this issue before pretrial, Appleby argued the charges of attempted rape and capital murder based on the aggravating crime of attempted rape were multiplicitous. `Multiplicity is the charging of a single offense in several counts of a complaint or information. The reason multiplicity must be considered is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.' [Citations omitted.] State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 475, 133 P.3d 48 (2006). The procedural objection of multiplicity preserves a claim of double jeopardy, which arises when a defendant is actually sentenced twice for one offense. See Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 475, 133 P.3d 48. When analyzing a claim of double jeopardy, the overarching inquiry is whether the convictions are for the same offense. There are two components to this inquiry, both of which must be met for there to be a double jeopardy violation: (1) Do the convictions arise from the same conduct? and (2) By statutory definition are there two offenses or only one? Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 496, 133 P.3d 48. The State does not argue that the offenses were two acts of discrete conduct. Consequently, we accept that the convictions arose from unitary conduct and focus on the second inquiry of whether the conduct constituted one or two offenses by statutory definition. When analyzing whether sentences relating to two convictions that arise from unitary conduct result in a double jeopardy violation, the test to be applied depends on whether the convictions arose from one or two statutes. If the double jeopardy issue arises from convictions for multiple violations of a single statute, the unit of prosecution test is applied. If the double jeopardy issue arises from multiple convictions of different statutes, in other words if it is a multiple-description issue, the strict-elements test is applied. Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 497, 133 P.3d 48. Because Appleby raises a double jeopardy argument arising from his convictions under two different statutes, the strict-elements test applies to this analysis. The strict-elements test serves as a rule of statutory construction to discern whether [a legislature] intended multiple offenses and multiple punishments when a court is analyzing the claim under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 498, 133 P.3d 48. Similarly, when analyzing a claim under § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, the same-elements test is applied to implement the legislative declaration in [K.S.A. 21-3107] that a defendant may be convicted of two crimes arising from the same conduct unless one is a lesser included offense of the other. Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 498, 133 P.3d 48. Finally, K.S.A. 21-3107 provides a statutory defense when charges arise from the same conduct. K.S.A. 21-3107 provides: (1) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one crime under the laws of this state, the defendant may be prosecuted for each of such crimes. Each of such crimes may be alleged as a separate count in a single complaint, information or indictment. (2) Upon prosecution for a crime, the defendant may be convicted of either the crime charged or a lesser included crime, but not both. A lesser included crime is: (a) A lesser degree of the same crime; (b) a crime where all elements of the lesser crime are identical to some of the elements of the crime charged; (c) an attempt to commit the crime charged; or (d) an attempt to commit a crime defined under subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b). (Emphasis added.)