Court Opinion

ID: 9788972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:23:38.282213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:18.076502
License: Public Domain

Lewis, J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part: I agree with the majority on all issues except that concerning the substitution of judges. I do not agree with the majority decision on that issue and dissent.
It is veiy obvious, and the majority so admits, that neither Judge Sieve or Judge Burdette complied with K.S.A. 43-168. Apparently, neither judge was aware of the statute in question. I do not fault either judge for not being cognizant of the statute; I had never seen or heard of it prior to this case. Nonetheless, it does exist and must be reckoned with.
The majority finds that neither trial judge complied with the statute but concludes the noncompliance was nothing more than “harmless error.” Their opinion would require a defendant to somehow show that actual prejudice occurred due to the judges’ *966failures to comply with the statute. As much as I would prefer that approach, I am unable to agree.
If we label the failure to comply with 43-168 simply harmless error, I believe we have effectively repealed the statute. We have, in the past, covered up violation after violation of K.S.A. 60-455 as “harmless error,” and I believe that statute has become largely meaningless. A defendant can seldom, if ever, show actual prejudice in an error of this nature. If a similar error occurred with a jury, we would reverse the conviction in a nearly summary fashion and no showing of actual prejudice would be required.
As I read 43-168, it provides that a substitute judge may “proceed with and finish the trial” after he or she has certified “that he [or she] has familiarized himself [or herself] with the record of the trial.” I would suggest that we can only construe this to mean that a judge who has not complied with the statute may not proceed with and finish the trial.
It seems to me obvious in the extreme that if Judge Sieve or Judge Burdette failed to comply with the statute, neither was authorized to proceed with or finish the trial. If there was no authorized trial judge presiding, the trial was a nullity and the verdict cannot stand.
It is not for me to determine the wisdom or propriety of the statute in question. Our job is to apply the law as written by the legislature.
I agree with those courts which hold that when the substitute judge fails to become familiar with the record, under a statute such as we have, the error is reversible as a matter of law.