Kansas Supreme Court Denies Compensation to Former Prisoner Whose Conviction Was Overturned
In a ruling on August 9, 2024, the Kansas Supreme Court held that former state prisoner Robert W. Doelz could not recover damages from the state for his wrongful conviction because he had proved only that he was “legally innocent,” which the Court distinguished from “actual innocence” that it said was required for recovery under relevant state statute. The case provides an important warning for Kansas prisoners whose charges are dropped after a successful appeal; however, the ruling doesn’t explain what they need to make a successful claim for wrongful incarceration resulting from the tossed conviction short of acquittal on retrial or an admission by a prosecutor that he didn’t commit the crime.
The Court earlier reversed Doelz’s conviction on January 11, 2019, finding that he was subjected to an unconstitutional, warrantless search when Leavenworth cops stopped his car in 2013. Therefore the drugs they found should have been evidence that was suppressed and not introduced at his trial. Doelz was found guilty at the conclusion of that trial of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, but the Court’s decision vacated his conviction. See: State v. Doelz, 309 Kan. 133, 432 P.3d 669 (Kan. 2019).
The prosecutor then declined to retry the charges against Doelz, who was released after serving four years in prison. He sought compensation for his wrongful conviction pursuant to K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004. Under that statute, Doelz was required to show that a) he had been convicted of a felony and imprisoned; b) his conviction was reversed or vacated, and the charges dismissed or a retrial resulted in a not guilty verdict; c) he did not commit the crimes of which he was convicted or was an accessory or accomplice to those offenses that were the basis of the conviction “and resulted in a reversal or vacation of the judgment of conviction, dismissal of the charges or finding of not guilty on retrial”; and d) he did not commit or suborn perjury, fabricate evidence, or cause or bring about the conviction.
The state admitted that Doelz met all requirements but the third. The district court agreed, finding that Doelz’s conviction was reversed due to a Fourth Amendment violation, not because it was found that he didn’t commit the crime. Moreover, he was not retried, and the dismissal of the charges did not indicate why they had been dismissed. Although Doelz testified that he was innocent “because the drugs were not his,” the district court said that this was not the reason cited in dropping the charges. Doelz pointed out that no reason was offered. But the district court simply fell back on the statutory language, finding that he “did not offer any evidence that the reason for the dismissal [of the charges] was because he did not commit the crime.” His petition for compensation was therefore denied. Doelz appealed.
K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) requires, as an element of a claim for compensation, “a causal connection between a claim of innocence and an ultimate outcome.” The Court noted that the grammatical structure of this requirement was “obtuse, if not simply wrong,” and examined the legislative history of the statute, which “plainly indicates the Legislature intended to compensate only individuals who are determined to be actually or factually innocent,” Justice Caleb Stegall wrote. “It did not intend to compensate every criminal defendant whose conviction was reversed on appeal.”
Thus, claimants for compensation must show that they did not commit the crime (or were not an accomplice or accessory to its commission), “resulting in” either reversal of conviction, dismissal of the charges or a finding of not guilty at retrial. In Doelz’s case, the charge was dropped after his conviction was reversed, but without any finding as to whether he committed the underlying offense. Absent that, the Court said, he made a case for being “legally innocent,” not actually innocent, so he was ineligible for compensation.
Doelz pointed out that he had no control over the prosecutor’s decision not to try him again, which was the only way to obtain a not-guilty verdict. Nor could he force the prosecution to state the obvious reason for not taking him back before a jury: that it no longer believed it could make the case against him. The Supreme Court admitted that it was “possible a criminal defendant could be both actually innocent and the victim of an unconstitutional search.” However, it stuck to its interpretation of the statute, insisting that it required a showing that the charge was dismissed due to a finding of actual innocence. The lower court’s judgment was thus affirmed. Doelz was represented by Kansas City attorneys Greg N. Tourigny and Sophie Woodworth. See: In re Doelz, 319 Kan. 259 (Kan. 2024).
Additional source: Topeka Capital Journal
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login