Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
STATE OF KANSAS v. BETH MERRILL
Date: 06-22-2024
Case Number: 126,146
Judge: David E. Bruns
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS (Shawnee County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jacob M. Gontesky, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Kris W.
Kobach, attorney general
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Topeka Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Topeka, Kansas criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant with appealing, contending that the State of Kansas does not have territorial jurisdiction to prosecute this case. In addition, she contended that the district court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial relating to the issue of territorial jurisdiction. She also contended that the district court erred in admitting evidence of her refusal to take a breathalyzer test. Finally, Merrill contended that the district court's application of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 216811(c)(3) in calculating her criminal history score violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
A review of the record before us shows that the district court properly exercised territorial jurisdiction over this case. In determining that Kansas has territorial jurisdiction as a matter of law, the district court appropriately applied the provisions of K.S.A. 215106 to the evidence presented at the bench trial. Furthermore, Merrill failed to preserve
some alleged errors for appeal, and we find that any error in admitting the testimony of law enforcement regarding their training on the location of the Kansas-Missouri border was harmless.
We also find that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Merrill's breath test refusal because the implied consent advisory provided to her by law enforcement substantially complied with the provisions of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001. Additionally, we find that the district court's application of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 216811(c)(3) at sentencing did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution because it only increased the penalty for her current convictions. We, therefore, affirm Merrill's convictions and the sentence imposed.
Affirmed
About This Case
What was the outcome of STATE OF KANSAS v. BETH MERRILL?
The outcome was: A review of the record before us shows that the district court properly exercised territorial jurisdiction over this case. In determining that Kansas has territorial jurisdiction as a matter of law, the district court appropriately applied the provisions of K.S.A. 215106 to the evidence presented at the bench trial. Furthermore, Merrill failed to preserve some alleged errors for appeal, and we find that any error in admitting the testimony of law enforcement regarding their training on the location of the Kansas-Missouri border was harmless. We also find that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Merrill's breath test refusal because the implied consent advisory provided to her by law enforcement substantially complied with the provisions of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001. Additionally, we find that the district court's application of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 216811(c)(3) at sentencing did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution because it only increased the penalty for her current convictions. We, therefore, affirm Merrill's convictions and the sentence imposed. Affirmed
Which court heard STATE OF KANSAS v. BETH MERRILL?
This case was heard in IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS (Shawnee County), KS. The presiding judge was David E. Bruns.
Who were the attorneys in STATE OF KANSAS v. BETH MERRILL?
Plaintiff's attorney: Jacob M. Gontesky, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Topeka Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was STATE OF KANSAS v. BETH MERRILL decided?
This case was decided on June 22, 2024.