State v. Betts

489 P.3d 866

STATE of Kansas, Appellant,

v.Dexter BETTS, Appellee.

No. 122,268

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Opinion filed June 18, 2021.

Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellant.

Jess W. Hoeme, of Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC, of Wichita, and Carrie E. Parker, of Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC, of Topeka, for appellee.

Before Bruns, P.J., Buser, J., and Walker, S.J.

Walker, J.:

The State of Kansas appeals from the district court's finding that Wichita Police Officer Dexter Betts was immune from prosecution for reckless aggravated battery by virtue of the provisions of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231. Betts had been charged with the crime after firing two gunshots at a dog while investigating a domestic violence report. Although Betts' shots missed the dog, bullet fragments ricocheted and hit a nearby young girl in the face and foot. After careful review of the district court's ruling and several related appellate cases, we find the court conducted the proper legal analysis and therefore affirm its decision finding Betts immune from prosecution for reckless aggravated battery in the incident.

FACTS

On December 30, 2017, Wichita Police Officers Andrew Corlis and Betts responded to a report of domestic violence with a weapon at a residence in Sedgwick County. The reporting party informed police that a man was holding a gun and was potentially planning to use the gun to commit suicide. The caller, who was the man's ex-wife, also reported that the man had been choking a dog. When Corlis and Betts arrived at the scene, the man, who they believed was their suspect, was standing at the end of the driveway with his hands in the air. As they stood in the driveway, the officers saw children inside the home.

Betts and Corlis approached the man simultaneously and checked him for weapons, but they did not find any. Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Jim Crouch arrived on scene. Crouch took control of the man and told Betts and Corlis to go inside the house to check on the children and try to find the reporting party. When the officers entered the residence, they saw three children sitting in the living room. Betts' body camera showed two boys standing in front of a television and a girl sitting on the floor in front of a couch.

As they were entering the house, Crouch told Betts and Corlis he had learned that the gun was in a bedroom. Corlis then continued straight and went into a bedroom on the left, where he found the gun underneath one of the pillows. Corlis yelled to Betts, who was not in the room, that he had located the gun. Meanwhile, Betts proceeded to the right down a hallway with multiple doorways with his gun drawn. Betts opened a couple of the doors and told Corlis there was a dog in the house. Betts initially walked backwards, then turned around and walked towards the room Corlis was in. As he was walking, the dog barked and lunged at Betts, who fired two rounds from his gun at the dog. Betts then told Corlis that the dog had attacked him.

Immediately after the shots were fired, the young girl, who was sitting near where Betts had shot at the dog, began screaming about her eye. Fragments from one of the bullets had ricocheted and hit the girl in the eyebrow and toe. The officers then told the children to exit the house. Shortly thereafter, Crouch asked the officers via radio whether they were fine. Betts responded and told Crouch that they were fine and that shots had been fired at the dog after it attacked him. Crouch told them that he could not hear what they said, and Betts responded again and told Crouch that the dog had attacked him. Crouch then directed Corlis and Betts to exit the house.

In March 2018, the State charged Betts with one count of reckless aggravated battery as a result of the injuries to the girl. In July, Betts filed a pretrial motion to dismiss based on statutory immunity. In September 2018 the State responded to Betts' motion and argued he was not entitled to immunity. Nearly a year later, in August 2019, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on Betts' motion. After hearing arguments from both parties, the district court took the matter under advisement. The following month, the district court issued its ruling, finding that Betts was entitled to statutory immunity under K.S.A. 21-5231 and granting Betts' motion to dismiss the case.

The State has timely appealed from the district court's order.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the State argues the district court erred in dismissing the case against Betts after finding that he was entitled to immunity under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231.

In reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss based on immunity under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231, we apply a bifurcated standard of review of the district court's findings. Accordingly, when the district court's factual findings arise out of disputed evidence, we must determine if the findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. In doing so, we do not reweigh the evidence. The ultimate legal conclusion as to whether the facts so found arise to the level of probable cause is a legal conclusion which we review de novo. When there are no disputed material facts on a motion under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231, we are presented with a pure question of law over which we exercise unlimited review. State v. Hardy , 305 Kan. 1001, 1012, 390 P.3d 30 (2017).

Kansas' self-defense immunity statute states:

"(a) A person who uses force which, subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5226, and amendments thereto, is justified pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5222, 21-5223 or 21-5225, and amendments thereto, is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of such officer's official duties and the officer identified the officer's self in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, ‘criminal prosecution’ includes arrest, detention in custody and charging or prosecution of the defendant.

....

"(c) A prosecutor may commence a criminal prosecution upon a determination of probable cause." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231.

As evidenced by the plain language of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231, the Legislature intended to create a "true immunity" that prevents the State from criminally prosecuting individuals who are justified in their use of force. District courts give effect to this immunity by performing a gatekeeping function that insulates a defendant who qualifies for immunity from prosecution and trial. To invoke a district court's gatekeeping function, a defendant files a motion under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231, which then places the burden on the State to produce evidence establishing probable cause that the defendant's use of force was not statutorily justified. State v. Phillips , 312 Kan. 643, 655-56, 479 P.3d 176 (2021).

When evaluating a claim of self-defense immunity under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231, "the district court must consider the totality of the circumstances, weigh the evidence before it without deference to the State, and determine whether the State has carried its burden to establish probable cause that the defendant's use of force was not statutorily justified." Hardy , 305 Kan. at 1011, 390 P.3d 30. Recently, our Supreme Court clarified that "[i]n the self-defense immunity setting, probable cause means that the facts as found by the district court are sufficient for a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of defendant's guilt despite the claim of justified use-of-force immunity." State v. Collins , 311 Kan. 418, 426, 461 P.3d 828 (2020).

When making its probable cause determination on a pretrial immunity motion, a district court should follow a two-step process:

"First, the district court must make findings of fact based on the stipulations of the parties and evidence presented at the hearing, along with any reasonable inferences therefrom. In this first step, ‘the district court usually is squarely tasked with resolving conflicts in the evidence’ in favor of one party or the other. Second, the district court must then reach a legal conclusion as to whether the State has met its probable cause burden based on its factual findings. [Citations omitted.]" Phillips , 312 Kan. at 655, 479 P.3d 176.

The district court applied the correct legal standards

Here, the district court concluded that there were no disputed material facts on Betts' motion for immunity. Moreover, neither party disputes this conclusion on appeal. As we noted previously, when there are no disputed material facts on a motion under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231, we are presented with a pure question of law over which we exercise unlimited review. Hardy , 305 Kan. at 1012, 390 P.3d 30.

At the outset of the hearing on Betts' motion for immunity, the district court identified the correct legal standard from Hardy . The district court's ultimate ruling did not reiterate the exact standard, but its ruling referenced and discussed Hardy multiple times. As part of its ruling, the district court concluded that Betts qualified for immunity under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5231 based on self-defense as defined by K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5222.

The Kansas statute defining defense of a person states:

"(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

"(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or

...