Court: Supreme Court of Kansas; June 27, 2014; Kansas; State Supreme Court
Rosen, J. delivered the court's opinion affirming Bobby Edwards' conviction for aggravated robbery, as upheld by the Court of Appeals. On September 15, 2008, Wichita police responded to reports of Edwards acting erratically and damaging property, including breaking a store window. After being taken to Via Christi Hospital, his blood alcohol content was recorded at .375. He exhibited aggressive behavior towards medical staff, necessitating sedation with Haldol. By early morning, he was deemed clinically sober and released in hospital scrubs.
On September 16, Kristie Zenner, living with her boyfriend and son, mistook Edwards for her boyfriend when he knocked at her back door. Upon discovering it was Edwards, she allowed him to use her phone, but he then attacked her with a hammer, striking her on the head. During the struggle, Edwards held Zenner in a chokehold, but she escaped using her martial arts skills. While attempting to call 911, Edwards seized the phone from her. He asserted he was not going to rape her but was looking for the hammer. Edwards inquired about other occupants in the house, learning of Zenner's son. After a second hammer blow to her head, Zenner complied with Edwards' demand for car keys, hoping to buy time for her safety.
Zenner attempted to kick Edwards in the groin but failed to incapacitate him. During a struggle, Edwards swung a hammer at Zenner, which she managed to block, causing him to lose balance. Zenner suggested that Edwards could leave with her phone and the hammer, while both maintained a grip on the hammer. Edwards displayed no signs of impairment, speaking clearly and coherently. When Zenner’s son cried, Edwards agreed to leave. After he exited, Zenner locked the door and called the police with a neighbor's help. Edwards later returned, asking to retrieve a bag, but Zenner refused, citing the police's imminent arrival. Upon arrival, police found Zenner's phone with blood on it and a bag containing Edwards' wallet and hospital papers in her townhouse.
The State charged Edwards with aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery for taking the phone and hammer, and attempted first-degree murder for assaulting Zenner. After a series of trials, Edwards was acquitted of aggravated burglary and attempted murder, with a mistrial declared on aggravated robbery. His third trial resulted in a conviction for aggravated robbery, leading to a 247-month prison sentence, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court's opinion, which Edwards petitioned for review, will focus on whether the taking of Zenner's phone and hammer was incidental to battery and insufficient for robbery. Edwards argued he lacked specific intent to deprive Zenner permanently of her property, citing State v. Montgomery, where a similar incidental taking did not meet the robbery requirement. Montgomery established that theft, a necessary component of robbery, requires specific intent, and incidental taking during another crime does not fulfill the robbery criteria.
The analysis of the Montgomery opinion is deemed incompatible with the current case's facts, as the defendant, Edwards, explicitly sought to use the victim's telephone, which he forcibly took, and subsequently attacked her with a hammer. These items were central to the crime, contrasting with the Montgomery case where the defendant's actions aimed to facilitate the victim's evasion of identification. The Court of Appeals appropriately rejected Montgomery's interpretation, emphasizing that under K.S.A. 21-3426, robbery requires only the coercive taking of property from another, without needing to demonstrate specific intent to permanently deprive the victim of that property. Statutory interpretation prioritizes the plain language of the law, which does not impose any threshold for the significance of the property taken. The court affirms that robbery is a general intent crime, unlike theft, which necessitates specific intent. Additionally, aggravated robbery also only requires general intent, making voluntary intoxication an insufficient defense. The distinction between robbery and theft is highlighted, with theft being a lesser included offense of robbery, despite the latter not requiring specific intent.
The Montgomery panel referenced K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(b), which outlines an elements test for lesser crimes, while K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(a) states that a lesser degree of the same crime may qualify as a lesser included offense. This application solves the perceived conflict where a lesser crime requires specific intent while the greater crime requires only general intent. The court clarified that robbery does not incorporate theft elements, as established in State v. Lucas, where ownership by the victim is not required for robbery. The Montgomery panel erroneously suggested that the statutory definition of robbery includes the need for specific intent regarding the taking of property. Instead, robbery is characterized by the element of force, not the intent to keep the property. Black’s Law Dictionary defines 'taking' as seizing an article without needing specific intent or permanent deprivation. Edwards completed the robbery when he forcibly took the items from Zenner, as asportation is not necessary for the crime's completion. The court disapproved of the Montgomery analysis and upheld the Court of Appeals' decision.
In a separate issue, Edwards argued that the district court erred in allowing the State to present expert testimony without following K.S.A. 60-226 procedures. While the trial court has discretion over the admission of expert testimony, Edwards contended that the State was obligated to provide advance notice of expert witnesses. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error, noting that Rohrig was a rebuttal witness, and prosecutors are not required to disclose rebuttal witnesses, consistent with State v. Drach. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court's rulings regarding both the robbery definition and the expert testimony.
The Court of Appeals did not determine whether the expert witness notice requirements in K.S.A. 60-226 apply to criminal proceedings. Past rulings indicate that civil procedure may apply in criminal cases only if there are no conflicting provisions in the criminal code. K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-226(b)(6) mandates that parties disclose expert witness identities and specifics of their testimony at least 90 days before trial and provide rebuttal evidence notice 30 days in advance. Compliance with these civil requirements would significantly burden the State's ability to adhere to speedy trial mandates. K.S.A. 22-3201(g) requires the State to list all known witnesses when filing charges, while rebuttal witnesses may not be known at that time. Additionally, K.S.A. 22-3212 outlines specific discovery obligations for criminal cases, recently revised to require defense counsel to provide a summary of their expert witness testimony to the prosecution, with no similar obligation for the prosecution regarding its witnesses. As a result, civil discovery rules for expert witnesses do not apply in criminal matters.
Regarding the appeal, Edwards contends the State did not provide sufficient evidence of force in taking property from Zenner. The Court of Appeals found substantial evidence supporting that Edwards forcibly seized items from Zenner, despite initially having control without violence. Edwards also argued the robbery statute allows for alternative means of committing the crime, but the Court of Appeals concluded it specifies a single means, a view later upheld by this court. Furthermore, Edwards challenged jury instructions, asserting a need for an incidental taking instruction and clarification that force must coincide with taking. The court determined omitting the incidental taking instruction was not erroneous, as the precedent cited by Edwards is no longer valid.
The Court of Appeals found that the omission of a prior force instruction was not a clear error, supported by uncontested evidence of Edwards forcibly taking a phone from Zenner while she attempted to call 911 and their struggle over a dropped hammer. Edwards contested the district court's limitation on expert witness Goodman’s testimony regarding his mental illness and the hospital's alleged failure to hold him longer for observation. The Court of Appeals ruled that the exclusion of Goodman’s opinion did not deny Edwards the chance to fully present his involuntary intoxication defense, as a potential error by the hospital would not aid in establishing Edwards’ state during the robbery. Edwards claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, but did not adequately demonstrate how the alleged shortcomings negatively impacted his defense, leading the Court of Appeals to reject these claims thoroughly. Additionally, Edwards raised a new argument on appeal concerning jury unanimity related to multiple acts of theft, but this was deemed an unpreserved issue not properly before the court. Consequently, the court granted the State's motion to strike this argument and affirmed the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the district court, concluding that the errors claimed by Edwards did not merit a reversal of his conviction or sentence. Judge Moritz did not participate in the decision.
