Today the Kansas Supreme Court released its decision in State v. McMullen, a Jessica’s Law case. As part of his appeal, the Defendant claimed that his so-called “confession” was the result of police deception. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court found that his defense attorney had failed to include evidence of such deception in the record, which means the Supreme Court couldn’t review it.
“McMullen’s first obstacle is self-inflicted. The record on appeal does not provide the information necessary for this court to review the factual findings upon which the district court’s decision was based. Apparently, McMullen['s lawyer] did not file a suppression motion, but rather the Jackson v. Denno hearing was requested by the State. Consequently, we have no record of the arguments that McMullen['s] lawyer presented to the district court. Further, without the hearing transcript, we have no record of the State’s evidence and, obviously, cannot determine whether that evidence was substantial and competent so as to carry the State’s burden. Most importantly, the appearance docket, which simply states that McMullen’s statement was admissible, is the only record of the court’s ruling on the matter, i.e., we have no findings of fact to review. Moreover, the only conclusion of law presented by the record for our review is the ultimate determination by the district court to admit the confession.
“At oral argument, McMullen['s lawyer] acknowledged that it is his duty to properly designate the record on appeal to support his claims of error. See State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507, 213 P.3d 1052 (2009); State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670, 175 P.3d 840 (2008). If that record is inadequate, the appellate court presumes the district court’s findings were properly supported and the claim of error must fail. Trussell, 289 Kan. at 507 (citing State v. Haney, 34 Kan. App. 2d 232, 236, 116 P.3d 747, rev. denied 280 Kan. 987 [2005]); Paul, 285 Kan. at 670.”
This holding illustrates why it is critical – critical – to have an experienced criminal defense attorney in all stages of the proceeding. The fact that McMullen’s lawyer never filed a suppression motion may have, in and of itself, stopped the Supreme Court from reviewing his confession. Even worse, his appeal lawyer didn’t even have a transcript of the hearing added to the record! That failure is inexcusable, because without that transcript the Supreme Court has no basis to find McMullen’s confession was the result of deceptive police tactics.
At Bell Folsom, P.A, our attorneys have filed hundreds of appeals. We know how to include critical evidence in the record and avoid negligent “self-inflicted wounds.” And if you don’t believe that an experienced criminal defense attorney is important, just ask Mr. McMullen. He’ll be spending the next fifty years of his life in prison. If you or a loved one are facing signficant jail time, contact us immediately so that we may begin putting our experience to work for you.