State v. Hambright

545 P.3d 605

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Gerald D. HAMB RIGHT, Appellant.

No. 124,878

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Oral Argument Held December 14, 2023.

Opinion Filed April 5, 2024.

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed April 28, 2023. Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Bruce C. Brown, judge.

Kasper Sehirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, Derek Schmidt, former attorney general, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, were with him on the briefs for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Luekert, C.J.:

The Legislature has made it a crime for certain felons to possess a weapon. In doing so, the Legislature defined a weapon as "a firearm or a knife" and defined "knife" as "a dagger, dirk, switchblade, stiletto, straight-edged razor or any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of like character." K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6304(c). The State first charged Gerald D. Hambright with violating this statute by possessing a knife. Before trial, it amended the charge to unlawful possession of a dagger.

A jury convicted Hambright. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising multiple claims of error and seeking reversal of his conviction. The Court of Appeals addressed only one issue—Hambright’s claim the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he possessed a dagger. The Court of Appeals agreed with his claim, holding that "the State failed to present sufficient evidence of what characteristics the object Hambright possessed made it a dagger." State v. Hambright, No. 124,878, 2023 WL 3143654, at *6 (Kan. App. 2023) (unpublished opinion).

On review of that decision, we reverse the Court of Appeals and hold the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Hambright possessed a dagger. The jury saw the dagger and heard details about the length of its blade and other descriptive characteristics, including that it had a sharp edge and pointed end. From this physical evidence, the jury could—and did—apply its knowledge and common sense to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Hambright possessed a dagger. Our rejection of Hambright’s sufficiency issue does not end Hambright’s appeal, however, because he raised other issues the Court of Appeals did not need to reach after it determined the evidence was insufficient. We remand his appeal to the Court of Appeals for it to consider whether any other error occurred.

Factual and Procedural Background

A Sedgwick County sheriff’s deputy was dispatched to a rural area to investigate a "suspicious character." He found Hambright resting on the side of a dirt road and asked about Hambright’s welfare. The deputy offered to give Hambright a ride to a gas station. Hambright accepted and stood up to go with the deputy. The deputy noticed an object in a sheath on Hambright’s belt and asked Hambright to put the object in Hambright’s backpack. The deputy explained he would put the backpack in the trunk. Hambright complied. The deputy later learned that Hambright had been convicted of a felony about two years before the encounter. The conviction meant Hambright could not possess a weapon, such as a knife or dagger.

The State charged Hambright with the unlawful possession of a knife in violation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6304. Shortly before trial, Hambright moved to dismiss the prosecution, citing State v. Harris, 311 Kan. 816, 467 P.3d 504 (2020), for support. In Harris, this court held the words "or any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of like character" in the residual clause of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304’s definition of "knife" are unconstitutionally vague on their face because they provide no explicit and objective standard of enforcement. 311 Kan. at 824-25, 467 P.3d 504. Citing this holding, Hambright argued that post-Harris "a defendant is guilty of a violation of K.S.A. 21-6304 only if it is found that the defendant possessed a dagger, dirk, switchblade, stiletto, or straight-edged razor, … In this matter, there is no evidence or accusations establishing that Mr. Hambright possessed a ‘knife’ within the definition provided by K.S.A. 21-6304(c)(1)."

During a pretrial hearing on the motion, the State told the judge it would file an amended information changing the charge from possession of a "knife" to possession of a "dagger." The State specifically referenced language in the Harris dissent that quoted a dictionary and defined "dagger" as a " ‘short, pointed blade, used for stabbing.’ " Harris, 311 Kan. at 832, 467 P.3d 504 (Biles, J., dissenting) (citing Webster’s New World College Dictionary 372 [5th ed. 2014]). The district court allowed the State to amend the charge, which the State did.

At the jury trial, the deputy testified about his interaction with Hambright. The State also showed the jury a video recorded by the deputy’s body camera. A sheathed object hanging from Hambright’s belt is visible in the recording. The State also admitted the object and photographs of it. The photographs show a fixed, sharp-edged blade with a pointed end and the nylon sheath. Two photographs include a ruler positioned to show the length of the blade and the handle. The blade and the handle each measure roughly 4.5 to 5 inches long, making the object about 9 to 10 inches long. The deputy also described the sharp, nonserrated blade. The deputy frequently used the word "knife" when referring to the object but never used the word "dagger" during his testimony. The State presented no evidence other than the deputy's testimony and the exhibits of the object that had been on Hambright’s belt, the photographs, and the video.

Hambright moved for a judgment of acquittal after the State presented its evidence. He argued the State failed to prove the object he possessed was a dagger. The district court denied the motion, and the case was ultimately submitted to the jury for determination of Hambright’s guilt.

The district court instructed the jury about the elements of criminal possession of a weapon, In doing so, the court defined "weapon" to include a "firearm or knife" and defined "knife" to mean a "dagger, dirk, switchblade, stiletto or straight razor." No definition of "dagger" was included in the jury instructions. Nor did the instructions include the residual clause in the definition of knife found in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6304(c) that refers to "any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of like character." The jury convicted Hambright of criminal possession of a weapon by a felon.

Hambright appealed, making several arguments, Along with the sufficiency argument before us, he contended the instruction defining a "knife" was overly broad, the prosecutor committed misconduct, and cumulative error required reversal of this conviction, The Court of Appeals three-member panel considered only the sufficiency argument. A majority of the panel held that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence that Hambright possessed a dagger. That holding alone required reversal of Hambright’s conviction, leaving no need to address his other claims. 2023 WL 3143654, at *6.

On the sufficiency issue, the Court of Appeals majority noted the jury instructions, did not define "dagger" and it concluded there was no commonly understood definition. Based on those circumstances, the majority held that "the State provided no evidence, expert or otherwise, that the object Hambright handed the officer … was a dagger. Faced with these circumstances, we cannot say that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt Hambright possessed a dagger in violation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6304(c)(1)," 2023 WL 3143654, at *6.

One panel member dissented. She concluded the evidence sufficed to show Hambright’s object fit within a "reasonable and practical" understanding of the term "dagger," which she defined to be " ‘a weapon with a short, pointed blade, used for stabbing." 2023 WL 3143654, at *7 (Cline, J., dissenting) (quoting Webster’s New World College Dictionary 372 [5th ed. 2016]). She also criticized the majority for viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense rather than the State as required by the standard for reviewing sufficiency issues. 2023 WL 3143654, at *6-9 (Cline, J., dissenting).

The State petitioned for review. Hambright conditionally cross-petitioned for review of the issues the panel had declined to address. We granted the State’s petition for review and Hambright’s conditional crosspetition and have jurisdiction under K.S.A. 20-3018(b) (providing for petition for review of Court of Appeals decisions) and K.S.A. 60-2101(b) (Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review Court of Appeals decisions).

Analysis

1. Sufficient Evidence

[1, 2] Appellate courts apply a well-established standard of review when a party challenges the sufficiency of the evidence: We "review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Buchanan, 317 Kan. 443, 454, 531 P.3d 1198 (2023). In that review, we do not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or weigh witness credibility. 317 Kan. at 454, 531 P.3d 1198.

[3] It is through that lens we consider the Court of Appeals majority’s holding that the State failed to prove the charge that Hambright possessed "a weapon, to wit: dagger" in violation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6304(a)(3)(A). Hambright, 2023 WL 3143654, at *6. We reach a different conclusion than did the Court of Appeals majority and hold the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational fact-finder to return a verdict finding Hambright guilty of possessing a dagger.

[4–6] Our analysis is straightforward and relies on two well-established legal principles. First, we apply...