The Prior Inconsistent Statement Project, Part 9 (Kansas)

Kansas is another jurisdiction I have identified as a possible jurisdictions where a recanted prior inconsistent statement not given subject to the penalty of perjury might be sufficient to support a conviction. Let’s take a look at the case law.

The key case here seems to be State v. Coppage, 124 P.3d 511, 515 (Kan.App. 2005). In Coppage, the police were dispatched to a residence after “Katrina McCuiston, a neighbor,…told the police that T.S. had sent a ‘text message’ to her cell phone which contained a plea for help.” When the police arrived at T.S.’s residence,

T.S. answered the door; her face was badly swollen and her eyes were swollen shut. T.S. was barely able to speak and she walked slowly. There was blood on her shirt. T.S. informed the police that [Robert] Coppage had beaten her. She told the officers that Coppage punched her in the face with his fist, kicked her with his feet, and struck her with a lamp in the bedroom. T.S. showed the officers the lamp that had been damaged as a result of the beating. 

Thereafter,

T.S. directed the officers to a bedroom where they found Coppage asleep on the bed. Coppage was awakened and immediately handcuffed and taken into custody. At the police station, Coppage gave a detailed statement in which he admitted to beating T.S.

T.S. was taken by ambulance to the hospital for treatment of her injuries which were documented with photographs. A pair of bloody jeans were found in the front room of the house. Blood was also found on the bed sheets and a pillow case in the bedroom.

As a result, the State charged Coppage with aggravated battery. At trial,

the State presented evidence through McCuiston and the police officers. The photograph of McCuiston’s text message was admitted into evidence. The police officers testified about their observations at the residence and the statements made to them by T.S. The photographs of T.S.’s injuries were also admitted into evidence as well as other physical evidence collected at the scene.

Subsequently,

T.S. then testified and recanted what she had previously told the police. She claimed that she did not know the man who had inflicted her injuries. She testified that she concocted her story to the police so that Coppage would be arrested at the scene, thereby preventing him from trying to locate and harm the real attacker. The prosecutor repeatedly impeached T.S.’s testimony with her prior inconsistent statements to the police.

After this recantation, the judge excused the jury and asked the prosecution how it would prove its case against Coppage.

The prosecutor proffered the State’s remaining evidence in its case in chief, which included Coppage’s confession to the police. After hearing from the prosecutor, the trial court surmised that the State could not possibly meet its burden of proof and dismissed the charge against Coppage.

In finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the charge, the Court of Appeals of Kansas noted that “[i]n dismissing the charge against Coppage, the trial court expressed a belief that the prior inconsistent statements of a turncoat witness cannot be used as substantive evidence to prove the elements of the crime. This is contrary to established Kansas law.”

The court then engaged in a fairly length discussion of the issue:

Had the trial court not dismissed the case, the jury would have been permitted to consider T.S.’s prior inconsistent statements to the police as substantive evidence in determining whether Coppage was guilty of the charge. Although T.S.’s recantation provided conflicting evidence for the jury to weigh, this fact alone would not have barred the State from obtaining a conviction against Coppage.

A review of the record reveals that the State had presented sufficient evidence against Coppage to sustain a conviction for aggravated battery even at the point the trial was prematurely stopped. The State had presented evidence through McCuiston and the police officers supporting the charge. The photograph of McCuiston’s text message had been admitted into evidence. The police officers had testified about their observations at the residence and the statements made to them by T.S. The photographs of T.S.’s injuries had also been admitted into evidence as well as other physical evidence collected at the scene.

Furthermore, the trial court ignored the State’s proffer of additional evidence which included Coppage’s confession to the charge. The trial court had initially ruled that Coppage’s statement would be admissible evidence. It should have been the jury’s function at Coppage’s trial to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses….By granting the judgment of acquittal after T.S.’s recantation, the trial court denied the jury the opportunity to determine Coppage’s guilt or innocence. The trial court clearly erred in not allowing the case to proceed.

So, where does that leave Kansas? It’s tough to say. Clearly, in Kansas, a recanted prior inconsistent statement can “be used as substantive evidence to prove the elements of the crime.” But can it be the sole evidence? Just as clearly, the Court of Appeals of Kansas went to lengths in Coppage to describe the other evidence against the defendant and how it could have been enough for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And the same goes for State v. Aguirre, 245 P.3d 1, 11 (Kan.App. 2011), which cited to Coppage and also involved a recanted prior inconsistent statement and significant other evidence of guilt.

Therefore, I don’t think that Kansas has clearly answered the question of whether a recanted prior inconsistent statement alone can be sufficient to support a conviction.

-CM