Court Opinion

ID: 9548088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:57:17.895935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:27.359158
License: Public Domain

McFarland, J.,
concurring and dissenting: While I do not disagree with the statements of law in the majority opinion, I disagree with their application to the case herein. Converting the timetable of counts contained in the majority opinion to the convictions, it becomes:
Kidnapping 12:30 A.M.'
12:35 A.M. Attempted Rape
12:45 A.M. Attempted Rape
12:50 A.M. Aggravated Oral Sodomy
1:20 A.M. Attempted Rape
1:35 A.M. Aggravated Oral Sodomy
*157The majority opinion confuses the repetition of the same crime with “multiplicity.” This rationale means that no matter how many times a woman is raped by the same man it is but one offense as long as the time frame is contiguous. For example, in a gang rape situation where a woman is raped a total of six times by three men, it would be three crimes. If she were raped six times by the same man, it would be one crime.
“Multiplicity” refers to situations where one act results in multiple charges for the one act. For example, the victim is shot, and the accused is charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery, and aggravated assault. The single act of firing the gun is the basis for all three charges.
Jarrell v. State, 212 Kan. 171, 510 P.2d 127 (1973), cited by the majority, involved on appeal one count of rape, one count of taking a woman for defilement, and one count of assault with felonious intent. The rape count was held to include the latter two counts. The second rape count of Jarrell was not involved in the appeal and was not held to be duplicitous as the majority opinion herein would seem to imply.
In the case at hand we have numerous separate and distinct crimes being committed, each of which is a crime in its own right regardless of what occurred prior to or thereafter, and this is not “multiplicity.” The majority opinion, in effect, says that if a man rapes a woman once, he can repeat the crime as many times as he likes with no additional criminal liability therefor. This result is against public policy and is a further insult to the victims of such crimes.
I would affirm all convictions.