kansas appellate practice handbook - Kansas Judicial Branch

12-100 Forms
14
say as much after our Supreme Court decided Pham. That the legislature has not done so
demonstrates that it did not intend for the taking of a single object from the presence of
two individuals to constitute two counts of aggravated robbery, even if the defendant inflicts
bodily harm upon, or threatens, each victim.
Because the conduct in the present case was unitary and because, “[i]n the absence of
clear legislative intent, the rule of lenity presumes a single physical action harming multiple
victims is only one offense,” this Court must vacate one of Mr. Doe’s convictions for
aggravated robbery. Pham, 281 Kan. at 1248.
Issue III:
Because the district court failed to ask the jurors if the verdicts the
district court recited were, in fact, the jurors’ verdicts, this Court must
vacate Mr. Doe’s convictions.
Introduction
After the district court read the jury’s verdict aloud, it failed to ask the jurors whether
that verdict did, in fact, represent the jury’s verdict. This Court must, therefore, reverse Mr.
Doe’s remaining convictions.
Preservation of the Issue and Standard of Review
Mr. Doe did not raise this issue below. Nevertheless, “[t]here are several exceptions
to the general rule that a new legal theory may not be asserted for the first time on appeal”
including where “(1) the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on
proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; [and] (2) the consideration
of the theory is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent denial of fundamental
rights.” State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1059, 1073, 198 P.3d 769 (2008) (citing State v.
Hawkins, 285 Kan. 842, 845, 176 P.3d 174 [2008]).
This issue raises a question of law, does not rely on disputed facts, and is “finally
determinative of the case.” Moreover, this issue implicates the fundamental right to a
2013
unanimous jury verdict. See, U.S. v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483, 489 (10th Cir. 1979) (The right to