Court Opinion

ID: 9628501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:22:20.096016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:06.461369
License: Public Domain

Miller, J.,
dissenting and concurring: I agree with the Chief Justice that the rule set forth in Syllabus ¶ 8 of State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645, 647 P.2d 1292 (1982):
“When consent is the defense in a prosecution for rape, qualified expert psychiatric testimony regarding the existence of ‘rape trauma syndrome’ is relevant and admissible,”
and corresponding portions of the Marks opinion, should be overruled. I also agree with the Chief Justice that if evidence of rape trauma syndrome is to be admissible, then evidence as to the absence of the syndrome should also be admissible.
I agree with the majority opinion, however, on the speedy trial issue. The continuance granted on March 28, 1983, was for the purpose of allowing the defendant’s expert to complete his examination. Under the peculiar facts of this case, the ensuing delay should not be charged to the State.