Court Opinion

ID: 9606934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:54:18.056126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:36.438233
License: Public Domain

Prager, J.,
concurring: I concur with the majority in the result reached in this oase. Identity was clearly the crucial issue in the case. The record indicates sufficient similarity in the factual circumstances between the other offenses admitted into evidence and the one charged to allow a reasonable inference that the person who committed the other offenses also committed the instant offense. The evidence of other offenses was thus properly admitted to prove identity.
However, for reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Gonzales, 217 Kan. 159, 535 P. 2d 988. I cannot agree with the reliance by the majority on State v. Hampton, 215 Kan. 907, 529 P. 2d 127; and State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419, 502 P. 2d 728, cert. den. 411 U. S. 951, 36 L. Ed. 2d 413, 93 S. Ct. 1939.