State v. Speakman

1

State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Steven Matthew Speakman, Appellant.

No. 124,884

Court of Appeals of Kansas

March 1, 2024

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted Without Oral Argument.

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; DAVID L. DAHL, JUDGE.

Corrine E. Gunning, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Lance J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.

Before WARNER, P.J., GARDNER and HURST, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HURST J.

After a late night of drinking, Steven Matthew Speakman hit the victim-a person he called a good friend-in a manner that caused the victim's death. That is not disputed; Speakman admits that he hit the victim. The State charged Speakman with intentional second-degree murder for his actions. Speakman asks this court to reverse his conviction, alleging the district court erred in permitting the State to introduce evidence of Speakman's history of initiating violence when drinking to prove intent, motive, or knowledge. This court finds no reversible error in the district court's decision. The jury was unpersuaded by the limited evidence of intent and found Speakman guilty of the lesser included charge of reckless involuntary manslaughter rather than intentional murder. Speakman also brings an unpreserved constitutional challenge to the district court's order that he register as an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the early morning of August 21, 2019, Wichita police arrived to the scene of a disturbance call and found the victim lying unresponsive on the ground of a grocery store parking lot. Speakman was also at the scene. Emergency personnel transported the victim to an area hospital where he remained for more than two weeks before succumbing to his injuries on September 5, 2019.

During the investigation, police officers learned that Speakman and the victim were friends and used to be roommates. While in the grocery store parking lot, a witness heard the victim say he would not give Speakman a ride home and that Speakman would have to walk. The witness said the victim and Speakman then got into a short physical altercation, after which they began walking together in the same direction. While Speakman and the victim were walking together, the witness saw Speakman hit the victim in the side of the face causing him to fall to the ground and hit his head. According to the witness, Speakman then yelled at the victim and-while the victim was lying on his back-Speakman straddled him and repeatedly punched the victim in the face with both fists.

Emergency medical services transported Speakman to the hospital where he declined medical treatment. Officers at the scene reported that Speakman had bruised and bloody hands, a cut on his right pinky, and a cut on the back of his head. Prior to being transported to the hospital, Speakman said that he had "blacked out" and later told an officer that he had acted in self-defense. The State charged Speakman with intentional second-degree murder, and Speakman proceeded to a jury trial.

Pretrial Motions on Admissibility

Through pretrial motions, the State sought to admit evidence that Speakman had a history of violence when intoxicated; that Speakman had been drinking for an extended period of time before the incident occurred; that Speakman and the victim had fought on and off the night of the incident; and that Speakman had fought with another individual the night of the incident. The State anticipated several witnesses would testify about Speakman's temper, particularly when he was intoxicated. The State argued the evidence was admissible under K.S.A. 60-401(b) as "evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact" to prove Speakman's intent, motive, and knowledge. Although the State did not believe the evidence was subject to the limitations on the admissibility of evidence of prior crimes and civil wrongs in K.S.A. 60-455, it argued that even if considered prior bad acts, the evidence would still be admissible because it was relevant to prove intent, motive, and knowledge.

At the pretrial hearing, the State explained:

"[T]here are witnesses that would testify that the defendant is what we would colloquially call a mean drunk, that when he drinks, he gets angry, that he tends to fight when he gets drunk, that he fought with another individual earlier in the evening, and that the defendant and the victim, they were together for a prolonged period of time that evening."

The State argued this evidence was relevant to motive and intent because Speakman was charged with an intentional crime and his defense "centers around the idea that he was justified in his actions, that what happened to the victim in this case was unintentional, and that he did not intend the consequences of his actions." Speakman's counsel disagreed, arguing the evidence was not relevant and was more prejudicial than probative: "[W]hat they're asking you to do is go back at 9:00, 11:00, and 1:00 and say, well, if he was an ass at 9:00, 11:00, and 1:00, he must've been an ass at 3:00 o'clock."

The district court concluded that the evidence was admissible "for a number of reasons," including to prove motive and intent, and found that the standards in K.S.A. 60455 relating to prior bad acts was "probably not applicable." But even if applicable, the evidence was admissible as to a "materially disputed fact" related to intent, motive, and knowledge and "the probative value far outweighs the prejudicial value." The court found that "Speakman's propensity for volatility when he is drinking is a critical element to the case."

The Testimony of A.H.

At trial, the State called several witnesses who testified about their experience with Speakman and the events on the day of the incident. One witness, A.H., said she was from the same town as Speakman and had known him and the victim for more than a decade. A.H. testified that Speakman and the victim were good friends at one point, and when they would get drunk together, Speakman would "say mean things" to the victim. She testified that drinking would increase the likelihood of Speakman yelling at the victim and trying to start fights with him. Despite Speakman's behavior, A.H. testified that the victim would "always have [Speakman's] back."

Speakman did not object during A.H.'s testimony.

The Testimony of J.W.

J.W. testified that he had known Speakman and the victim for roughly a decade, having met the victim through friends and Speakman while working as nightclub security. According to J.W., Speakman would harass and annoy people when he was drinking, although not in a violent way. He also testified that Speakman made fun of the victim in the hours preceding the killing.

The Testimony of Speakman

Speakman testified that the victim was one of his best friends. They had gone drinking at several bars the night before the early morning incident and had ended up at a friend's house after midnight. Speakman testified he drank about 12 beers that night and "might've went overboard" when making fun of the victim that night. Speakman testified that as the night progressed, the victim became more upset about the teasing and the victim said he was "going to beat [Speakman's] ass." After the victim parked the car, Speakman said the victim threatened him and pushed him to the ground where he hit his head and "blacked out." Speakman said he hit the victim because the victim was charging at him.

The Testimony of Other Witnesses

In addition to several police officers who participated in the investigation of the incident, the State also called two eyewitnesses of the verbal argument and physical altercation between Speakman and the victim. Most of this testimony is not relevant to Speakman's claims on appeal, but for two. One officer testified that shortly after the incident Speakman said he had acted in self-defense. Another officer testified that Speakman was intoxicated on the night of the incident.

The Verdict

In August 2021, the jury found Speakman guilty of the lesser included charge of reckless involuntary manslaughter. Speakman moved for a new trial and for a judgment of acquittal; the district court denied both motions. Speakman also moved for either a dispositional or durational departure sentence, but, again, the district court denied his motion.

In December 2021, the district court sentenced Speakman to 43 months' imprisonment with 24 months' postrelease supervision. It also informed Speakman of his duty to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act.

DISCUSSION

Speakman claims the district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior bad acts. He separately claims-for the first time on appeal-that the order to register as an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) is unconstitutional.

I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE

Speakman argues that the State inappropriately introduced evidence that Speakman categorizes as character and propensity evidence. Speakman objected to the introduction of evidence of his previous intoxicated actions based on relevance and argued the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. The district court disagreed with Speakman and ordered the evidence was admissible to prove his intent, motive, and knowledge and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial potential.

Generally when appealing the trial court's allegedly erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence, the party claiming error must have contemporaneously objected to the admission or exclusion at trial. K.S.A. 60-404; State v. Hillard 313 Kan. 830, 83940, ...