State v. Star

10 Citing cases

  1. State v. Witten

    45 Kan. App. 2d 544 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding statement “[s]omebody in our community is selling methamphetamines” improper

    Although the State presented evidence that Liberty Middle School was operated by a school district, no witness testified as to whether the building was used for one of the purposes set forth in the statute. Witten justifiably relies on State v. Star, 27 Kan.App.2d 930, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000). In Star, the evidence at trial established that the transactions occurred within 1,000 feet of " Hickok School."

  2. State v. Parrish

    343 P.3d 562 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)

    A defendant's conviction can only be sustained upon evidence which proves every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Star, 27 Kan.App.2d 930, 934, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000). Circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences deducible therefrom may be sufficient to support a conviction of even the most serious crime.

  3. State v. Brooks

    No. 120 (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2021)

    Our determination parallels Witten and more particularly State v. Star, 27 Kan.App.2d 930, 936, 10 P.3d 37 (2000). In Star, this court reversed the defendant's conviction under the predecessor to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5705, holding the State failed to present evidence that an elementary school was used by a school district or an accredited private school.

  4. State v. Perez-Rivera

    41 Kan. App. 2d 579 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence was insufficient to show that victim was 18 years of age or older when alleged battery occurred where State presented no direct evidence of victim's age and jury should not have been permitted to make an inference about victim's age based on its own observations of victim's physical appearance and demeanor at trial

    "A conviction can be sustained only upon evidence which proves every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 934, 10 P.3d 37 (2000). K.S.A. 21-3412a(a)(1) defines "domestic battery" as "[i]ntentionally or recklessly causing bodily harm by a family or household member against a family or household member."

  5. State v. Clayter

    334 P.3d 910 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014)

    Moreover, nothing at trial or in the record even suggests that the events in question took place anywhere other than Doniphan County. Clayter argues, however, that a second Highland Community College campus might exist and that State v. Star, 27 Kan.App.2d 930, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000), forbids a jury from relying on its own common knowledge in determining that the campus in question is that in Doniphan County. But Star involves the very narrow issue of whether a jury can infer whether a building “complies with the statutory definition of a school” for the purposes of convicting someone of selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school.

  6. State v. Calderon-Aparicio

    44 Kan. App. 2d 830 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 13 times
    Finding defendant not prejudiced by amendment because his defense at trial and evidence did not change based on amendment

    Here, based on all of the evidence presented at trial, a jury could fairly and reasonably infer that the place of the commission of the crime was in Johnson County.          At oral arguments, in contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the crime occurred in Johnson County, Calderon-Aparicio relied heavily on State v. Star, 27 Kan.App.2d 930, 10 P.3d 37 (2000). In Star, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the crime of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school when there was no evidence that the building referred to as Hickock School was used for school instruction, attendance, or extracurricular activities.

  7. State v. Ward

    292 Kan. 541 (Kan. 2011)   Cited 1,216 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the party benefitting from constitutional error has the burden to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record"

    At trial, there was evidence that Garfield School was a public school attended by kindergartners through third graders, but Ward argues there was no evidence that the school was used by a unified school district or an accredited nonpublic school. See State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 936, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000) (to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161 [d]); see also State v. West, Nos. 99,063, 99,067, 2008 WL 4849472 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 289 Kan. 1285 (2009) (reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school). As we have noted, this issue was not raised before the Court of Appeals or in Ward's petition for review. Rather, before the Court of Appeals and in her petition for review, Ward did not point to a failure to prove any specific element of a crime and did not distinguish one count from another.

  8. State v. Moody

    35 Kan. App. 2d 547 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 11 times

    A conviction may be sustained only upon evidence where every element of a crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Star, 27 Kan.App.2d 930, 934, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000). A conviction of even the gravest offense may be sustained by circumstantial evidence.

  9. State v. DuMars

    33 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 18 times
    In DuMars, an officer testified he had received information indicating the occupants of a specific residence (where the defendant lived) were involved in manufacturing methamphetamine; he had received information through interviews that the defendant was assisting in the manufacture of methamphetamine; and the drug task force had been receiving information about the defendant and another person at the address.

    While a jury is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, guilt cannot be based on inferences alone, and presumptions may not rest on presumptions nor inferences on inferences. See State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 935, 10 P.3d 37 (2000). Although the State does not make the argument on appeal, DuMars was convicted on an aiding and abetting theory.

  10. State v. Johnson

    33 Kan. App. 2d 490 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 11 times

    A conviction can be sustained only where every element of a crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Star, 27 Kan.App.2d 930, 934, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000). A conviction of even the gravest offense may be sustained by circumstantial evidence.