Nos. 120,134 120,252 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant/Cross-appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER M. BLISS, Appellee/Cross-appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When a person has been charged in the alternative, he or she may be convicted and sentenced on only one of the alternative offenses. 2. A district court deciding whether to consolidate multiple cases for trial may take into consideration any evidentiary complications that might arise from the consolidation. But the fact that consolidating cases might render the admission of some evidence more difficult, or require that its foundation be established through different methods, does not render consolidation unreasonable as a matter of law. 3. Kansas law requires a party to make a specific and timely objection at trial in order to preserve evidentiary issues for appeal. The purpose of this objection requirement is to allow the district court to act as an evidentiary gatekeeper—to rule on the admissibility of evidence based on specific arguments raised at trial, with the context of other evidence and testimony presented. 1 4. Though courts have recognized exceptions in some contexts that allow the consideration of issues on appellate review that were not preserved by a specific objection at trial, K.S.A. 60-404 does not allow those exceptions to come into play in the context of the admissibility of evidence. 5. A party seeking to admit evidence at trial must articulate a specific basis for that admission. Consistent with the specific-objection requirement under K.S.A. 60-404, this practice ensures that the trial judge has a chance to fully consider whether the evidence should be admitted and to avoid any reversible error. 6. A party may not seek to admit evidence on one ground at trial and then offer a different ground for its admissibility on appeal. The practice of raising new evidentiary arguments on appeal thwarts the purpose of the specific-objection requirement, deprives the district court of the ability to fully analyze the admissibility of the evidence in question, and deprives the reviewing court of the district court's evaluation of that question. 7. A party may not knowingly call a witness who intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination for the purpose of having the jury witness that invocation. 8. Appellate review of a district court's decision to impose a departure sentence follows a three-step framework. An appellate court first determines whether the ground given for the departure can, as a matter of law, be considered as a mitigating factor under 2 K.S.A. 21-6815. If it can, the appellate court next considers whether the cited ground is supported by the record. Finally, the appellate court considers the reasonableness of the district court's assessment that this ground, individually or when combined with other circumstances considered, constituted a substantial and compelling reason to depart from the presumptive sentence under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines. Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; STEPHEN J. TERNES, judge. Opinion filed September 24, 2021. Convictions affirmed in part and reversed in part, sentence vacated in part, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals