Court Opinion

ID: 9795707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:36:41.796687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:53.843317
License: Public Domain

McFarland, C.J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision that in order for evidence of prior bad acts to be considered relevant to prove plan under K.S.A. 60-455, “the evidence must be so strikingly similar in pattern or so distinct in method of operation to the current allegations as to be a signature.” I further dissent from the decision reversing the defendant’s convictions.
The majority’s decision rests only on the conclusion that the “sufficiently similar” standard for admissibility of prior crimes evidence to prove plan in child sex abuse cases has been too difficult to predictably and reliably apply. In support, the majority points to several cases in which it is impossible to reconcile the results that were reached.
First, the majority’s new standard is neither more clear nor workable—only more difficult to satisfy. Second, although I agree that the decisions in these cases are irreconcilable, it is not because the standard is unworkable. Instead, it is because there have been a series of decisions by this court and the Court of Appeals that have misinterpreted and confounded the original relevancy standard for admission of plan evidence by misconstruing a single remark in State v. Damewood, 245 Kan. 676, 783 P.2d 1249 (1989). In Dame-wood, the court commented that the evidence of the prior crimes in that case was “strikingly similar” to the charged crime. 245 Kan.
*741at 682. This was not a standard for admission, only a comment on the quality of the evidence at issue in that particular case. This language was subsequently further misinterpreted as requiring a “signature act.” While this divergence from the original standard was occurring, the original standard was not overturned and, thus, remained good law. As a result, the more restrictive language coexisted with the original standard in our case law. Hence, it is not surprising that decisions on the admissibility of plan evidence are impossible to reconcile.

The distortion of the similarity standard

In Damewood, the court explained that evidence of prior crimes to show plan is permissible under K.S.A. 60-455 where the evidence “is admitted to show the modus operandi or general method used by a defendant to perpetrate similar but totally unrelated crimes.” 245 Kan. at 681-82. The basis for admission of such evidence under this rule, the court explained, “is that the method of committing the prior acts is so similar to that utilized in the case being tried that it is reasonable to conclude the same individual committed both acts.” 245 Kan. at 682. That is the holding of the case — the standard by which the facts are measured to reach a decision. In applying that standard to the facts of the case before it, the court noted the evidence of the prior bad acts was “strikingly similar”:
“In the present case, there was testimony through various State’s witnesses that defendant denied all sexual activity with J. A. The testimony of M.S.R. of the events which occurred between him and the defendant in 1983 was strikingly similar to the method and plan the defendant used with J.A., even to the use of specific language and statements as well as specific actions of the defendant.” 245 Kan. at 682.
That part of the Damewood decision describing the evidence as “strikingly similar” is not the legal principle upon which the decision is based, it is nothing more than a comment on the high degree of similarity shown by the evidence in that particular case. Certainly, evidence in any given case can meet or even exceed the standard of admissibility, without creating a higher bar for all cases that come after. That, however, is exactly what has happened.
*742The court’s comment in Damewood was first misapplied as the standard for admissibility in State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816, 987 P.2d 1080 (1999). There, the court stated that the prior crimes evidence was admissible in Damewood because it “ was strikingly similar to the method and plan’ used in the later crime.” Rucker, 267 Kan. at 828. The court then used the “strikingly similar” language to affirm the admission of plan evidence in that case: “[T]here are striking similarities between the alleged and prior offenses to warrant the admissibility of the testimony to prove plan. [Citations omitted.]” 267 Kan. at 828.
In State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495, 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), a case decided the same day as Rucker, the court noted both the “strikingly similar” language used in Damewood, as well as language in State v. Clements, 252 Kan. 86, 90, 843 P.2d 679 (1992), in which the court upheld the admission of prior bad acts to prove plan because “ ‘[t]he general method used by [the defendant] to entice young boys is similar enough to show a common approach that is tantamount to a plan.’ ” Tiffany, 267 Kan. at 502. The court observed that “the evidence admitted in the guilt phase was limited to a strikingly similar method of operation. Similar words were used to entice the victims into performing the requested acts, the victims were all about the same age, and the criminal conduct was performed in the same manner.” 267 Kan. at 500. But, in affirming the admission of the evidence, the court used the language from Clements in concluding that “ ‘[t]he general method used ... is similar enough to show a common approach that is tantamount to a plan.’ ” (Emphasis added.) 267 Kan. at 502.
In State v. Aldaba, 29 Kan. App. 2d 184, 25 P.3d 149 (2001), the Court of Appeals noted that in Damewood, the perpetrator’s method in each incident was “ ‘strikingly similar.’ ” 29 Kan. App. 2d at 190. The court further noted that in Tiffany:
“The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the admission of the evidence, finding a ‘strikingly similar’ method of operation. [Citations omitted.] Specifically, the court found it relevant that the defendant used similar words to entice the victims, that the victims were about the same age, and that the criminal conduct was performed in the same manner. (Citation omitted.)” Aldaba, 29 Kan. App. 2d at 190.
*743Based on this, the Court of Appeals concluded: “As in Damewood and Tiffany, the children’s accounts are ‘strikingly similar’ here.” 29 Kan. App. 2d at 190.
The term “signature” first appears in State v. Tolson, 274 Kan. 558, 56 P.3d 279 (2002). There, the court used the term “signature” to describe the quality of the evidence at issue in Damewood:
“The State relied on State v. Damewood, 245 Kan. 676, 783 P.2d 1249 (1989), in which the court described ‘modus operandi’ as the ‘general method used by a defendant to perpetrate similar but totally unrelated crimes.’ [Citation omitted.] Damewood’s method was to interest boys in his beekeeping, which allowed him to be alone with them so that he could sexually molest them. The court found no error in the admission of tire testimony of a young man who had been drawn into beekeeping by Damewood and then sexually abused several years before the victim of the charged crime became involved with Damewood. [Citation omitted.]
“In Damewood, there was a method of operation, and it was so distinct as to be a ‘Signature.’ Damewood was being tried for arranging to spend time alone with a boy by involving the boy in his beekeeping activities and then sexually molesting him. Precisely the same pattern of conduct or method of operation was shown by the prior acts evidence to have been followed on a previous occasion.
“This case does not present such a clear picture.” (Emphasis added.) Tolson, 274 Kan. at 563-64.
It must be noted that although the Tolson opinion states that Damewood affirmed the admission of evidence because “it was so distinct as to be a ‘signature,’ ” the term “signature” was not used in Damewood.
By this point, it is obvious that the “strikingly similar” language used in Damewood, was morphing into the standard for admission of plan evidence. In 2003, in State v. Davidson, 31 Kan. App. 2d 372, 65 P.3d 1078, rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), the “strikingly similar” language appeared in the syllabus of the Court of Appeals’ opinion:
“Under the second theory for admission of K.S.A. 60-455 evidence to show plan, Kansas courts have admitted evidence of a prior crime when its method of commission was strikingly similar to the method of the charged crime.”
“The record of this case is examined and it is held: Similarities between the prior crimes and the charged acts were not striking, and the admission of K.S.A. 60-455 evidence to show plan was improper.” 31 Kan. App. 2d 372, Syl. ¶¶ 6, 7.
*744In its decision, the Court of Appeals relied on the “strikingly similar” language as the legal standard for admission of plan evidence: “We conclude this case lacks the ‘striking’ similarities that have marked our precedents. Under these circumstances, it was error for the district court to admit the K.S.A. 60-455 evidence to prove plan.” 31 Kan. App. 2d at 384.
In addition, the appearance of the “strikingly similar” language in the syllabus is important, for the syllabus sets out the points of law decided in the case. See K.S.A. 20-111 (requiring opinions to include a syllabus setting out “the points decided in the case”); K.S.A. 60-2106 (b) (appellate opinions “shall contain a syllabus of the points of law decided”).
In State v. Jones, 277 Kan. 413, 85 P.3d 1226 (2004), this court noted the divergent standards in the case law for the degree of similarity required for admission of prior crimes evidence to prove plan under K.S.A. 60-455. The court noted the “strikingly similar” and “signature” language used in Damewood, Tiffany, Aldaba, and Tolson, and the “similar enough to show a common approach that is tantamount to a plan” language used in Clements. Jones, 277 Kan. at 421. The court, however, did not resolve the confusion. Instead, the court held that the facts of the case failed to meet “either standard of similarity.” 277 Kan. at 421. In using that language, the court appeared to recognize die “strikingly similar” and “signature” language as a legal standard of admissibility.
Not surprisingly, then, in State v. Kackley, 32 Kan. App. 2d 927, 92 P.3d 1128, rev. denied 278 Kan. 849 (2004), the “strikingly similar” and “signature” language was recognized in the syllabus as the legal standard for admission for prior crimes evidence to prove plan:
“K.S.A. 60-455 evidence may be admissible in sex crime cases where the details of the plan or modus operandi for the prior crime and the crime for which the defendant is on trial are ‘strikingly similar or reflect a method of operation so distinctive as to be a ‘signature.’ ” 32 Kan. App. 2d 927, Syl. ¶ 3.
Most recently, in State v. Dayhuff, 37 Kan. App. 2d 779, 158 P.3d 330 (2007), the Court of Appeals noted the divergent standards and held that “strikingly similar”/“signature act” was the legal standard, for admission of prior crimes evidence to prove plan:
*745“Our Supreme Court has never clarified whether the standard is ‘signature act,’ ‘strikingly similar,’ or ‘similar enough’ when determining whether the prior crimes evidence is relevant to show plan under K.S.A. 60-455. See Jones, 277 Kan. at 423. Nevertheless, since Clements our Supreme Court and this court have more recently applied the ‘strikingly similar’ or die ‘signature act’ standard when determining whether prior crimes evidence is relevant to show plan; see Rucker, 267 Kan. at 826-28; Tiffany, 267 Kan. at 500; Kackley, 32 Kan. App. 2d at 932; Davidson, 31 Kan. App. 2d at 381; and Aldaba, 29 Kan. App. 2d at 190. Our Supreme Court has never defined the term ‘similar enough,’ and Clements provides little guidance on the analysis for such a standard. Based on how our Supreme Court and this court have been treating the issue, a ‘strikingly similar’ or a ‘signature act’ analysis is the appropriate standard for this case.
“Because there was insufficient evidence presented in this case to show a distinct mode of operation that was ‘strikingly similar’ or a ‘signature act,’ we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Dayhuff s prior crimes under the plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455.” Dayhuff, 37 Kan. App. 2d at 793-94.
This brings us to where we are today: with a new, much more restrictive, legal standard of admissibility of prior crimes evidence to prove plan than we had before, a result that occurred without any deliberate or conscious decision to abandon the original similarity standard. This is not how legal principles should develop.
We addressed the error of misconstruing language commenting on the facts of the case as the legal standard in Trustees of The United Methodist Church v. Cogswell, 205 Kan. 847, 473 P.2d 1 (1970). Cogswell concerned the tax exemption for property used “exclusively” for religious purposes under Article 11, § 1 of the Kansas Constitution. The trial court, relying on prior appellate decisions using the words “directly” and “immediately” in conjunction with “exclusively” when discussing the religious purposes tax exemption, held that property is exempt only if it is used directly, immediately, and exclusively for religious purposes. Because the property at issue was used only indirectly for such purposes, the trial court held it did not qualify for exemption.
On appeal, this court reversed. 205 Kan. at 861. The court noted that the decisions the trial court relied on “tend[ed] upon first blush to support the position of the trial court — that the provisions of the constitution and the statute here in question exempt from taxation only such property as it used ‘directly, immediately and exclusively[.]’ ” 205 Kan. at 853. However, the court held that the *746word “exclusively” had been improperly narrowed by cases construing it to mean only that which is also used “directly” and “immediately.” 205 Kan. 847, Syl. ¶ 7. To figure out how that happened, tbe court traced the source of the words “directly” and “immediately” in the case law and found that in the first case in which they appeared, “directly” and “immediately” were used to describe the facts of the case and did not constitute the rule of law applied by the court:
“In the opinion it was stated the facts disclose ‘the property was used more or less mediately or remotely for educational purposes. But none of it was used exclusively, directly, and immediately for such purposes.’ [Citation omitted.] A careful reading of the opinion will indicate the terms ‘directly’ and ‘immediately’ used in the opinion were explanatory and designed to be descriptive of the factual situation. It is clear in the opinion the rule applied by the court to exempt property from taxation was that it must be used ‘exclusively for educational purposes.’ ” 205 Kan. at 855.
The Cogswell court further stated:
“Where prior decisions have used the words ‘directly and ‘immediately,’ it cannot be said that their application was necessarily required by the constitution as a basis for the decision. The words were explanatory or descriptive of the facts rather than controlling in the decision-making process, and their use must be considered in the light of the facts in the particular case in which they appear. To interpret ‘exclusively’ to mean only that which is also ‘direcdy’ and ‘immediately used for a tax exempt purpose is unrealistic and would in substance add a new dimension to Article 11, Section 1 of the Kansas constitution limiting die tax exemption guaranteed by die constitution.” 205 Kan. at 858.
See also State v. Young, 220 Kan. 541, 554, 552 P.2d 905 (1976) (quoting Matter of Aaron D., 30 A.D.2d 183, 189, 290 N.Y.S.2d 935 [1968] [Steuer, J., dissenting]; in a case concerning voluntariness of a statement, the dissent bemoaned the “ ‘tendency to pare away the limits of what is voluntary by successive interpretations of prior interpretations’ ” and the evolution of the law whereby “ ‘little by little circumstances in a particular case which are held to show a lack of voluntary admission are further extended in the next one’ ”).
That is exactly what has occurred with the language “strikingly similar.” In using those words, the court in Damewood was merely describing the fact that the circumstances of that case showed a *747high level of similarity — higher than the standard of similarity required for admission. In seizing upon those words without recognizing that they were never intended to establish a higher standard of similarity than that applied by the court in Damewood, our courts erred in measuring the admissibility of the evidence at issue against those words, and they ended up morphing into the standard. This is not how precedent or legal principals should develop, because then the law changes without a deliberate, conscious decision as to whether it should be changed. In none of these cases was there a fully argued and deliberate, conscious, reasoned decision to abandon the original similarity standard in favor of the higher standard imposed by requiring “striking similarity” or “signature act.” We should not allow our precedent to develop in this fashion.
In summary, I agree with the majority that there has been confusion among Kansas appellate decisions in these cases. However, I disagree that this has been because the similarity standard was too low, or, as the majority states, did not have enough “meat on its bones” to allow courts to reliably draw the line between propensity evidence and plan evidence. Instead, the confusion is the result of the erroneous evolution of a higher standard of admissibility that coexisted with the original standard. Hence, it is not surprising that decisions on the admissibility of plan evidence are impossible to reconcile.
Interestingly, the similarity standard for admissibility of prior crimes evidence to show identity has not warped over the years and is being applied with little difficulty. This shows the similarity standard is not unworkable, it just needs to be uniform. On the need for uniformity, I agree with the majority. But I see no reason to abandon the original standard set out in Damewood. Accordingly, I would hold that prior crimes evidence is relevant to prove plan where the method of committing the prior acts is so similar to that utilized in the case being tried that it is reasonable to conclude the same individual committed both acts. In such cases the evidence is admissible to show the plan or method of operation and conduct utilized by the defendant to accomplish the crimes or acts. 245 Kan. at 682. This was the standard as it existed before *748the deconstruction began after Damewood. Further, I would hold that, under that standard, the trial court did not err in allowing the admission of the evidence of prior crimes to prove plan.