kansas appellate practice handbook - Kansas Judicial Branch

Forms 12-89
3
court had read were, in fact, the jury’s verdicts. (R. XIII, 460). Based on Mr. Doe’s criminal
history score of “I,” the district court imposed a controlling 112-month prison sentence. (R.
XIV, 28). Mr. Doe appealed. (R. I, 68).
Arguments and Authorities
Issue I:
The State failed to present sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Doe of
aggravated robbery because the taking was complete before the force or
threat of bodily harm occurred.
Standards of Review and Preservation of the Issue
“[W]hen sufficiency of the evidence is challenged following conviction in a criminal
case,” this Court asks “whether, after reviewing all the evidence, viewed in a light most
favorable to the prosecution,” this Court is “convinced a rational factfinder could have
found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Martinez, 290 Kan. 992, 1003,
236 P.3d 481 (2010) (citing State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 83, 201 P.3d 673 [2009]). To the extent
this issue involves a question of statutory interpretation, however, this Court has unlimited
review. State v. Henning, 289 Kan. 136, 139, 209 P.3d 711 (2009).
Defense counsel raised this argument below. (R. XIII, 366). Moreover, “[t]here is no
requirement that a criminal defendant challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the
trial court in order to preserve it for appeal.” State v. Farmer, 285 Kan. 541, 545, 175 P.3d 221
(2008).
Analysis
In order to prove that Mr. Doe was guilty of the aggravated robbery of Jones and
Drew, the State had to prove, among other things, that any taking “was by force or by threat
of bodily harm.” (R. 7, 8, 16; R. XIII, 425). K.S.A. 21-3427; P.I.K. Crim. 3d 56.31. In
other words, the State not only had to prove that a taking occurred and that, at some point,
Mr. Doe used force or threat of bodily harm; it also had to prove that Mr. Doe took the
property by force or threat of bodily harm, i.e., that the force or threat of bodily harm was
a “causative factor” of the taking. See, State v. Finch, 223 Kan. 398, 402-03, 573 P.2d 1048
(1978) (suggesting the term “by” is “synonymous with” the term “by means of.”)
2013