Opinion ID: 2581663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compulsory Joinder under K.S.A. 21-3108(2)(a)

Text: The district court and the Court of Appeals majority both relied upon the first clause of section (2)(a) of K.S.A. 21-3108, although they reached opposite conclusions. The statute reads: (2) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for a different crime, or for the same crime based upon different facts, if such former prosecution: (a) Resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal and the subsequent prosecution is for a crime or crimes of which evidence has been admitted in the former prosecution and which might have been included as other counts in the complaint, indictment or information filed in such former prosecution or upon which the state then might have elected to rely. This first clause of section (2)(a) of K.S.A. 21-3108 is a compulsory joinder provision. State v. Wilkins, 269 Kan. 256, Syl. ¶ ¶ 1 and 2, 7 P.3d 252 (2000): Under the compulsory joinder rule, if evidence is admitted of an offense not contained in the charge, later prosecution of that offense is barred if it could have been included as an additional count in the first prosecution. Syl. ¶ 1. The object of the compulsory joinder rule is simply to prevent the prosecution from substantially proving a crime in a trial in which that crime is not charged and then prosecuting the defendant in a subsequent trial using evidence presented in the earlier trial. The compulsory joinder rule furthers the constitutional guarantee against multiple trials . . . . Syl ¶ 2. The Court of Appeals majority correctly outlined the three requirements for application of the compulsory joinder clause to bar a prosecution: `(1) The prior prosecution must have resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal; (2) evidence of the present crime must have been introduced in the prior prosecution; and (3) the present crime must be one which could have been charged as an additional count in the prior case.' Wilkins, 269 Kan. at 260 (quoting In re Berkowitz, 3 Kan. App. 2d at 743). The State asserts this court's decision in State v. Mahlandt, 231 Kan. 665, 647 P.2d 1307 (1982), supports its argument that Norton County would not have been an appropriate venue for prosecution of the attempted theft by deception charge. The Mahlandt case began with a robbery of a service station in Sedgwick County. After obtaining the money in the cash register, the defendant kidnapped the service station clerk. However, she was able to escape the defendant's car as it left the station parking area. Later the same morning, and before the defendant removed the proceeds of the Sedgwick County robbery from his car, he robbed another service station in neighboring Butler County. Again, he kidnapped the clerk. This time he succeeded in driving the clerk into Sedgwick County, where he raped and sodomized her. The defendant was charged in Butler County with robbery, aggravated kidnapping, rape, and aggravated sodomy. He was also charged in Sedgwick County with robbery and aggravated kidnapping. The Sedgwick County victim testified about the Sedgwick County crimes in the Butler County case, which concluded first. The defendant was convicted on all four charges. He then filed a motion to dismiss the Sedgwick County case, claiming the second prosecution was barred by double jeopardy. The Sedgwick County district judge denied his motion, and he was convicted on both Sedgwick County charges. He then appealed. This court determined that the first two elements of the K.S.A. 21-3108(2)(a) compulsory joinder test had been met. The defendant had been convicted of the Butler County crimes, and evidence of the Sedgwick County crimes had been admitted in the Butler County trial. The remaining question was whether the Sedgwick County crimes could have been prosecuted in Butler County. The court discussed three venue statutes: K.S.A. 22-2603, which governs crimes committed in more than one county and provides for prosecution of such crimes in any county in which a constituent criminal act or element of the crime had occurred; K.S.A. 22-2609, which governs crimes in which property is stolen in one county and brought into another, and provides for prosecution in either county; and K.S.A. 22-2614, which provides that a kidnapping case could be prosecuted `in any county in which the victim has been transported or confined during the course of the crime.' 231 Kan. at 668-69 (quoting K.S.A. 22-2614). Under these statutes, this court held the Sedgwick County robbery charge could have been brought in Butler County, because the money stolen from the Sedgwick County service station was transported there. See K.S.A. 22-2609. This meant that all three of the requirements for application of the compulsory joinder clause of 21-3108(2)(a) were met as to the robbery, and the defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated by his later prosecution in Sedgwick County. 231 Kan. at 669-70. In contrast, the Sedgwick County kidnapping charge could not have been pursued in Butler County, because the Sedgwick County clerk had escaped from the defendant before he entered Butler County. In short, she was neither transported nor confined in Butler County during the course of the crime, as required by K.S.A. 22-2614. That charge also could not have been pursued in Butler County under K.S.A. 22-2603, because the kidnapping did not qualify as part of the Sedgwick County robbery. The kidnapping clearly was not an act necessary to the accomplishment of the robbery . . . . Instead, the facts show that the robbery was completed prior to the time when the victim [was kidnapped.] The commission of the robbery would not have been altered had the kidnapping not occurred. 231 Kan. at 669. This discussion demonstrates that Mahlandt supports the State's argument on application of the compulsory joinder clause in this appeal if we view the Saline County attempted theft by deception at issue as more analogous to Mahlandt' s Sedgwick County kidnapping than its Sedgwick County robbery. If we take the opposite view, then the district judge was correct to dismiss the attempted theft by deception charge under the compulsory joinder clause of 21-3108(2)(a). Theft by deception is defined as obtaining by deception control over property with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use, or benefit of the owner's property. K.S.A. 21-3701(a)(2). An attempt is any overt act toward the perpetration of a crime done by a person who intends to commit such crime but fails in the perpetration thereof or is prevented or intercepted in executing such crime. K.S.A. 21-3301(a). We note parenthetically that the State's decision to file only an attempt charge against Schroeder in Saline County is perplexing. If the State intended to base this charge on Schroeder's acceptance of the Farmers and Ranchers check rather than its surmise that he planned to negotiate the check for cash if he had not been arrested, it seems there had to have been a completed crime rather than an attempt, if there was any crime at all. Be that as it may, to the extent the allegations against Schroeder added up to a theft by deception or an attempted theft by deception, it is clear that all of the acts alleged to have constituted the crime were committed in Saline County. Under K.S.A. 22-2603, this situation differs from the Sedgwick County kidnapping before this court in Mahlandt because the Saline County crime was begun and finished after the crimes tried earlier in Norton County rather than before them. But this difference in sequence is not a meaningful legal distinction for venue purposes. We also are not persuaded that the Saline County attempted theft by deception charge could have been tried in Norton County because, under K.S.A. 22-2603, it was integral to the possession of stolen property crime that the State has conceded could have been prosecuted in Norton County and thus was properly dismissed in Saline County. Paraphrasing Mahlandt, the attempted theft by deception was not an act necessary to the accomplishment of the possession of stolen property. Instead, the facts show that the possession of stolen property was completed prior to the time when the check was accepted from Farmers and Ranchers. The commission of the possession of stolen property would not have been altered had the attempted theft by deception not occurred. Under Mahlandt, the district court erred in dismissing the Saline County attempted theft by deception charge on the basis of a conventional reading of the compulsory joinder clause of 21-3108(2)(a). The third requirement for application of that statute was not met. Norton County would not have been a proper venue for prosecution of that charge.