In re Spradling

509 P.3d 483

In the MATTER OF Jacqueline J. SPRADLING, Respondent.

No. 124,083

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed May 20, 2022.

Matthew J. Vogelsberg, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Krystal L. Vokins, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was on the brief for the petitioner.

LJ Leatherman, of Palmer Law Group, LLP, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Per Curiam:

This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent Jacqueline J. Spradling, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1992. After a December 2020 hearing before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, the panel issued a final hearing report on June 3, 2021. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 321) (competence), KRPC 3.1 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 384) (meritorious claims and contentions), KRPC 3.3(a)(1) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 385) (candor toward the tribunal), KRPC 3.4(c) and (e) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 389) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), KRPC 8.1 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 424) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and KRPC 8.4(c) and (d) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 427) (misconduct) involving respondent's conduct during the prosecutions of Dana Chandler and Jacob Ewing, Chandler's direct appeal, and respondent's disciplinary proceeding.

After the hearing and arguments, the hearing panel made the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations:

"Findings of Fact

"31. The hearing panel bases the following findings of fact on the evidence presented during the disciplinary hearing, including the exhibits admitted into evidence and the testimony of the witnesses. The hearing panel finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.

"32. The hearing panel is cognizant that the criminal cases which gave rise to this case remain pending in district court. The hearing panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law do not reflect what the State may or may not be able to prove during any retrial of the cases. Rather, the findings of fact and conclusions of law relate only to the respondent's conduct during the previous trials and appeals held in the cases as well as the respondent's conduct during the disciplinary investigation.

"Prosecution of Dana Chandler

"33. M.S. and Dana Chandler were married in 1982. Two children were born of the marriage. On March 3, 1997, M.S. filed a petition for divorce in the District Court of Douglas County, case number 97D0163. That same day, M.S. filed an amended motion for interlocutory relief. In the motion, M.S. included standard language seeking an order mutually restraining Chandler and M.S. from bothering the other. On March 5, 1997, the district court granted M.S.'s motion and ordered that, ‘Petitioner and respondent are mutually restrained and enjoined from contacting, bothering, harassing or molesting each other in any manner whatsoever, wheresoever each may be, pending the final hearing of this matter.’

"34. On March 5, 1998, the district court entered a journal entry of divorce. The district court awarded custody of the minor children to M.S. and visitation to Chandler. Based on the language contained in the ex parte order referenced above, the standard restraining order terminated on March 5, 1998.

"35. M.S. developed a romantic relationship with K.H. K.H. resided in Topeka, Kansas.

"36. On October 13, 1998, following the expiration of the standard ex parte restraining order, M.S. filed a motion for an immediate restraining order in the divorce action. In the motion for an immediate restraining order, M.S. asserted that Chandler was:

(a) intentionally, maliciously and repeatedly following and harassing the petitioner, [M.S.];

(b) destroying personal property of petitioner's acquaintances, including on two different occasions slashing automobile tires and ripping the convertible top of an automobile;

(c) harassing petitioner on the telephone under the pretense of talking to the parties' children;

(d) verbally abusing petitioner in the presence of the children and parents at sporting activities; and

(e) verbally abusing petitioner in the presence of friends and neighbors.

There are no entries in the Record of Action in the Douglas County District Court case that establish that Chandler filed a response to M.S.'s motion, that the motion was set for hearing, or that the district court ruled on the motion.

"37. In approximately 2000, M.S. and the children moved to Topeka, Kansas. Neither M.S. nor K.H. sought or obtained a protection from abuse order restraining Chandler in either Douglas County, Kansas or Shawnee County, Kansas.

"38. During the afternoon hours of July 7, 2002, M.S. and K.H. were found dead in K.H.'s Topeka home, from gun shot wounds. There was no evidence of a burglary—there was no evidence that anything was missing from the home; K.H. was wearing jewelry, M.S.'s wallet containing more than $950 in cash was in his shorts, and K.H.'s purse containing more than $350 in cash was on the kitchen counter. A sliding glass door leading into the house from the back was ajar. The gun was never recovered and no fingerprints were found on the empty shell casings or elsewhere at the scene of the crime.

"39. At the time of the murders, Chandler lived in Denver, Colorado. Later, Chandler moved to Oklahoma.

"40. In July 2011, Chandler was charged with two counts of premeditated first-degree murder. See K.S.A. 21-3401(a).

"41. The trial was held in March, 2012. The respondent was the lead prosecutor in Chandler's murder trial. There were 10 days of testimony during which the State called over 80 witnesses and introduced nearly 900 exhibits into evidence. The jury convicted Chandler of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and the district court sentenced Chandler to two consecutive life sentences, each carrying a mandatory minimum 50-year prison term.

"42. Chandler took a direct appeal of the convictions to the Kansas Supreme Court. Chandler challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and asserted that the respondent engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. On April 6, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed Chandler's convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct committed by the respondent. [ State v. ] Chandler , 307 Kan. 657, 414 P.3d 713 (2018).

"Protection from Abuse Order

"43. On January 23, 2012, more than a month before Chandler's jury trial commenced, the respondent filed a motion to admit K.S.A. 60-455 evidence. In the motion, the respondent sought permission to offer evidence that M.S. filed a motion for an immediate restraining order on October 15, 1998, indicating that Chandler intentionally, maliciously, and repeatedly followed and harassed him, that she destroyed the personal property of his acquaintances, and that she engaged in telephone harassment. The respondent also sought permission to offer evidence of a protection from abuse order filed by M.S. and Chandler's daughter in 2009.

"44. The district court granted the motion and permitted the respondent ‘to present evidence regarding 1) the following and harassing of [M.S.] including the October 15, 1998 PFA Order, 2) the entering of [M.S.]'s home, 3) arguing with victims [M.S.] and [K.H.], 4) peeking inside [M.S.]'s home, and 5) frequently phoning both victims at various times during the day and night.’

"45. The district court affirmed its prior ruling that M.S. and K.H.'s statements that they feared being murdered by Chandler were inadmissible hearsay. The court, however, ordered that ‘a witness could relate incidents (pursuant to K.S.A. 60-460 [d][3]) if those incidents were recently perceived by the victim(s)’ and were otherwise admissible based on the district court's rulings. Finally, the District Court ordered that a witness ‘could testify about his or her personal observation of the victim's demeanor while relating the incident.’

"46. In the respondent's opening statement, she stated that M.S. ‘responded to [Chandler's request to set aside all the orders in the divorce case] with motions for an immediate restraining order against the defendant which is a court ordering the defendant to stay from him.’ M.S. filed only one motion—rather than multiple motions—seeking an immediate restraining order. Later, in her opening statement, the respondent stated that M.S. ‘asked for the immediate restraining order ... on October 15th, 1998. And in his request, ... said that the defendant continued to follow and harass him ...’

"47. During her opening statement, the respondent also displayed a slide show. The slide show included a slide which stated, ‘[M.S.] responded with Motions for Immediate Restraining Order against the defendant ...’

"48. Gordon Rock represented M.S. in the divorce action filed in Douglas County, Kansas. The respondent called Mr. Rock to testify as a witness in Chandler's trial. The respondent did not question Mr. Rock regarding the existence of any type of restraining order in effect at the time of the murders.

"49. Sergeant Volle was the lead detective who investigated the murders of M.S. and K.H. The respondent called Sergeant Volle to testify as a witness in the case against Chandler. On direct examination, the respondent did not ask Sergeant Volle any questions regarding the existence of a restraining order.

"50. During redirect-examination, the respondent questioned Sergeant Volle regarding a protection from abuse order as follows:

‘Q. Will you tell the jury what a production [sic ] from abuse or PFA is.

‘A. It's a document signed by the Court that says you are not able to have contact with another person, you're not supposed to call them, write them, contact them in any manner.

‘Q. A court order precluding one person from contacting another?

‘A. Yes.

‘Q. Did [M.S.] get a protection from abuse?

‘A. Yes, he did.

‘Q. Against who?

‘A. Against the defendant.

‘Q. In 1998?

‘A. That's correct.’

"51. On recross-examination,

...