Juvenile Case Law Update


Published on

Presentation given at a continuing Legal Education Seminar at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, KS, December 2008.

Published in: Education
1 Comment
  • Thanks for this. The presentation seems to pre-date In re E.R., 40 Kan. App. 2d 986; 197 P.3d 870; 2008 Kan. App. LEXIS 199 (Dec. 12, 2008)
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Discussion! This is the perception of a young man in Prison. Does anyone have any thoughts about what we see in the mind of this young kid?
    Please care! Tell your clients that you care!
    CROSSROADS by Ras Mosi (Matthew Williams), Evans Correctional Institution, South Carolina. He said, “Nowhere on earth is it harder to find privacy than in prison. Be it for meditation, prayer, or just thinking, it’s practically impossible. . . Not only is it crowded, it’s loud. Doing art helps me get away from all that so I can keep my sanity until I’m released.”
  • Want to tell about the L.M. case and hopefully inspire you to go back to your jurisdiction with some FIRE in your bones, want to inspire you to CHANGE something and set a GOAL to change something.
  • OBSTACLES. Discuss the problems associated with getting to L.M. The L.M. case was probably only one of at least 30 tries, meaning at least 30 motions for trial by jury were filed, and all of them were either pled out, or the kid ran away, or the kid got certified, or even worse I WON! I never thought I would get frustrated about winning a case, but winning a case on the facts meant that the issue wouldn’t go any farther. Have to remember that while litigating the big issues I have outlined here I was doing them all at the same time. The judge’s knew that when they saw me that it was going to be one of the three. Another issue out there was bills of particular. . . It is hard work. The nice thing is after about the third or fourth motion it gets easier.
    Create the right atmosphere in your organization.
    Complex litigation panels, open discussion for new fresh ideas, thinking outside of the box. . . Etc.
  • I had a boiler plate motion to start with. It all fit on a single page. Describe it. I remember filing the first few motions and I noticed something very interesting. . . Other attorneys were doing too. I saw other lawyers in the bar following the lead, especially with regard to interrogation and jury trials. Wayne Westblade did it, especially in a case involving interrogation . . . I was worried that he was going to beat me to it. . . Because I was certain I had a great issue.
  • Went through many motions and many great cases until the stars aligned and I got what was needed to get the issue reviewed by the appellate courts. Tell the Guerro war story. . .
    Share some war stories. I first had to explain to every client what their options were. Some were willing and others were not. Mention the ethical rules and how difficult it is to have the client make the determination as to how to proceed. I also had to tell EVERY CLIENT that chose to ask for a jury that I was going to ask for something that I knew they were not going to get. Interestingly enough, after the L.M. case was argued and I was still making the motions for jury trial I told one magistrate judge, in so many words, “your honor, arent’ you sick and tired of me asking for this? Just give me one and I won’t appeal it and you won’t have to hear me rant about it.” In complete shock to me he granted it! That case then later pled out. WOW. But you must assume you are going to lose, and the whole time you know that you are going to lose you have work as hard as you can to win. In the jury trial case I knew that I not only had to file the motion I also had to object before the beginning of every trial so that my objection was contemporaneous with the actual trial. In cases where you have a constitutional issue, like Miranda or a Search or Seizure question you have to make your objection contemporaneous to the issue as it is brought up during trial.
  • Making these objections are sometimes viewed as annoying, but it must be done. DO IT! The objection must be made during the trial so as to preserve the issue. If you have done a motion to suppress you must renew that motion during the trial in the case. In the L.M. case it was necessary to renew the motion just prior to trial (the day of trial) so that issue was appropriately preserved. If you have moved to suppress evidence (whether it is tangible or intangible), when that evidence is offered you must object to its admission.
  • After educating myself about the history I had to get started. What did I learn.
  • I thought the charge was a bit of an overreaction. Also, the background of the situation was that I totally disagreed with the position of the court and the prosecutor is so many cases that I just couldn’t take it any longer. It really was nuts that the state was doing things like charging kids with battery, criminal threat, solicitation of a minor for things like fighting at football practice, saying “shut up or I’m gonna get you!” or telling a fellow student to suck my dick, and that the judge could potentially convict a kid for such behavior. So I made a determination that I was going to do something about changing the way things are run around here. I had some very pointed issues that I was, and still am, upset about (interrogation, jury trials, and fairness in sex cases); those were the big three.
  • Discuss the reasoning behind the decision.
  • Explain the background history of parens patriae and how the original juvenile courts were not criminal courts, but were there to act as a parent would act. I had never been a juvenile court litigator. Describe you background in personal injury/plaintiff’s work and how you came on the scene with a fresh look and how the system felt nothing like parental care at all. Visiting kids in detention was depressing! (Strip searches after meeting with the attorney, etc.).
  • The history of juvenile court system illustrated that attorneys implemented an all out attack on parens patraie and that the concept was slowly eroding aways taught me very quickly the reason juveniles did not have jury trials was because EVERYONE thought that juvenile cases were not criminal cases. Explain how you remember telling a prosecutor who took issue with you about the CIVIL NATURE of the cases and telling her that you were going use a civil discovery (nonesense) to conduct the casework. There wasn’t anything CIVIL about it.
  • The history of the juvenile court revealed an all out attack on the concept of parens patriae. in the beginning the standard of proof was preponderance but then moved to beyond a reasonable doubt to enter a finding of delinquency. Then delinquency changed entirely and the legislature altered the term delinguincy, entirely and the state had to prove NOT DELINQUENCY but guilt.
  • In the early 1980’s Kansas attorneys began to question whether kids were being treated fairly, but the courts continued to find as it had in the past and used the doctrine of parens patraie to deny the fully penolopy of rights to juveniles. Findlay case was about terroristic threat! Who hasn’t heard a juvenile say something like, I am gonna kill you or I am gonna F you up or something like that. I had a bench trial, where I had asked for a jury and was denied. It was a high school fight kind of thing where teens were just talking trash over the phone. . . That was it. . . No jury would have ever convicted this kid. . . Maybe Finday was a lot like that. . . In the L.A. case the court was addressing the factual situation of a drug charge. . . Not certain a jury would have made much difference. In the In Re ACW case it revolved around a 12 year old boy playing doctor with his little sister in the front yard. The attorney that litigated that case also asked for a jury. . . And it is possible it would have made some difference. It was/is frustrating to see that during the pendency of all the above cases the Kansas Courts were clearly changing. Later the adult sentencing guidelines would be modified and HITT and LAMUNYON would come along. I am still dumbfounded how the KCDAA argued in its brief that Stare Decisis controlled and that no real change had occurred since the advent of McKeiver!!! The Supreme Court disagreed!
  • Remember this slide? The question framed was “Is the juvenile court now acting like a parent or like the police?”
  • The net result is that EVERY CASE YOU HAVE READ in juvenile court has now been questioned in some respect as a result of In Re L.M. EVERY TIME the court has used the excuse of parens patraie to trample on the rights of the child is now been declared unacceptable.
  • This is the quote from the case that impressed me.
  • Here is a brief video that outlines the media reaction to the decision. What are you thoughts on it?
  • Discuss the issue of challenging the constitutionality of certification proceedings in Kansas.
  • Discuss the statistics and what you have learned about other counties, Sedgwick, Shawnee, Finney, Ford, Geary, etc.
  • Mention In Re E.R. and encourage others to look for the decision when it comes out.
  • Discuss the facts of the case. What makes the case interesting is how it unfolded. In adult court defendants can petition the court using a 60-1507 motion, and this is a case that is something like that. Explain how the kid went through two attorneys and how now the court ultimately reversed the guilty plea because the court failed to follow the strictures of K.S.A. 38-2344.
  • It is interesting to note that the court actually uses the term, “Speedy Trial,” however a juvenile is not entitled to a speedy trial, but is only entitled to a trial without unnecessary delay.
  • Go over the facts in more detail. Go over the arguments as well. This is a concept that may be useful in cases where you have overzealous prosecutors mutually charging children where there is no clear victim.
  • “Do any other constitutional or statutory rules of adult criminal procedure also now apply in juvenile cases? If so, which rules?” was the question of the State’s Solicitor general. Keep in mind that the criminal code and the code of criminal procedure is to be judged against the constitution. I would submit that if the Kansas Courts have ruled that certain criminal procedures are constitutionally required that those same procedures are now required in juvenile court, and so ask for them.
  • This is going to be especially true in cases where the juvenile has no prior record. Discuss the criminal threat case where the kid made a dumb comment at school, yet he remained in jail for at least 10 days while the judge decided whether she would let the kid. All he had was an accusation. If you are a child and are accused you just might find yourself in jail with NO RIGHT TO BE SET FREE! This is not right.
  • A cop saying this to an adult doesn’t mean much. What does it mean to a kid who is very young and inexperienced, yet this is what is regularly done. . . How often are we as attorneys filing motions to suppress in child cases? The issue needs to be revisited. The last really good case on this issue was In Re Gault.
  • First of all we need to bring up suppression motions, second of all we need to get some good case law on this issue. I have never gotten this issue clarified in my mind. I am all for additional protections of the child. . . I think it means that if the kid is under age 14 the cops cannot talk to the kid until the kid has discussed whether he/she will talk to the police with his/her parents; meaning the cops have to give the child an opportunity to do this after they have explained this to the child and the child’s parents. I also take the statute to mean that this includes ANY INTERROGATION! The statute differentiates between arrest and “in custody” (which is broad). It does not mean that the parent decides. . . It means the kid decides after talking to his/her parents. Thoughts?
  • As an attorney we need to take special care in scrutinizing the record. Bring up the issue of coersion, the mother/father forcing a confession.
  • I am sorry but judges do not get this. They think the standard is just as it is in adult cases, meaning the same level of proof is required. It is not the case. The state has the burden to prove that “under the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile’s confession/admission were voluntary. It is not defense counsel’s burden. Good questions to ask during suppression hearings revolve around how things look and feel. Look at the big picture, everthing from heights, weights, voice tone, voice inflection, the way someone looks, the side of their hands, whether they had a gun, handcuffs, were in a police car, whether they were in plain clothes, whether the door was open or closed, whether people were sitting or standing and who was doing what, what grade the kid is in, how well the kid reads, the vocabulary level, how long conversation lasted (it doesn’t have to be long), was the kid crying, what happened right before the incident (context); was the kid thinking clearly, were any promises made (even minor comments like, everything will be okay, you won’t be arrested (doesn’t mean they won’t be charged, but the kid doesn’t get that).
  • Comment on the appellate defender recently doing a petition for cert questioning using juvenile adjudications against adults, especially when no constitutional rights were given. Unfortunately I don’t think it will be successful because of the last paragraph of the L.M. opinion.
  • Juvenile Case Law Update

    1. 1. United Way Helps Here! Kansas Legal Services is a statewide legal services organization that seeks to help the impoverished with legal problems. KLS provides an array of unique services, including employment training. KLS makes a difference by providing quality legal representation. Areas of practice include Domestic & Family Law, Landlord Tenant, Consumer Protection, Elder Law, Juvenile Law, Education Law, Disability, etc. If you, or someone you know needs help, please call 800-723-6953800-723-6953
    2. 2. Juvenile Offender Case Law Update With discussions regarding future constitutional issues in juvenile court. . . Changing Juvenile Courts, Expanding Constitutional Rights of Children.
    3. 3. In Re L.M., 186 P.3d 164 (Kan. 2008) • Explain how the case got started • Outline the case itself • Outline the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, and its reasoning in its ruling (History) • Outline the obstacles in setting this precedent and in setting similar, future precedents • Discuss the case’s implication, and how it can influence your practice
    4. 4. Setting Up the Litigation! Identifying the issue, and mapping out a plan. Good organization. The right case. . . A willing client! Optimism. Unfortunately, I also knew that I had to lose in order to appeal and make change!
    5. 5. Jousting the Windmill Once I had a grasp of the issue I was then able to begin the process of litigating the case. It required a clear methodical plan that was logically implemented.
    6. 6. False Starts and Frustrations It became important to keep in mind where it was that I was ultimately going to end up. UNFORTUNATELY I also had to lose before any change would occur.
    7. 7. Contemporaneous Objections The general rule in Kansas is that a contemporaneous objection must be made, and it should be specific enough that the trial judge can rule intelligently upon the objection, and the specific contemporaneous objection must be made known to the opposing counsel when the objection is lodged.
    8. 8. Preparing for the L.M. Case It all started with Parens Patriae
    9. 9. What was In Re L.M. about anyway? (THE FACTS) L.M. is a juvenile offender case out of Finney County Kansas. The kid was charged with Aggravated Sexual Battery, a violation of K.S.A. 21-3518, a level five person felony and minor in consumption of alcohol. He requested a jury trial. It was denied. The facts of the case can be summarized as an incident involving a midnight encounter with a female neighbor. She was 27 and he was 16. L.M. asked the female for a cigarette and she gave him one. L.M. grabbed or hugged the neighbor requesting a kiss. When the neighbor refused L.M. allegedly licked and kissed her on the cheek and held on to her as she attempted to walk away. L.M. asked her if she “liked to fuck” and the encounter ended with no injury to anyone and L.M. stating, “bye baby.” L.M. stumbled home drunk.
    10. 10. Brown vs Hall (1930) FACTS OF THE CASE 15 Year old girl was out late, drinking, hanging out at poolrooms and with vicious immoral people, including thieves. She had broken no laws! It wasn’t even illegal for a 15 year old to drink beer then. A Brief History of the Jury Trial Issue In Kansas
    11. 11. Brown vs Hall (1930) A Kansas Case, 129 Kan. 859 ATTORNEY’s ARGUMENT This is a “Quasi Criminal” matter and her liberty is at stake! She deserves a jury trial. THIS ISN’t FAIR!
    12. 12. Brown vs Hall (1930) A Kansas Case, 129 Kan. 859 THE COURT RESPONDED This is not a criminal matter, it is a civil matter, and the child’s future is at stake because the child needs proper parental care!
    13. 13. The Brown Court’s Holding A proceeding against a delinquent and neglected child is not a criminal one. It is an inquiry to ascertain whether the child shall be placed under the direct and immediate control of the state for the good of the child, in securing for it proper nurture, training and education, not for the purpose of punishing it for any acts that it ought not to have committed. (State v. Dunn, 75 Kan. 799, 90 P. 231; State v. Dubray, 121 Kan. 886, 250 P. 316.) The judgment of the district court is not a punishment for crime committed; it is a finding of fact on which action for the good of the child is based. (In re Turner, 94 Kan. 115, 116, 145 P. 871.). Emphasis added.
    14. 14. Kansas Legislature Codified the Court’s Holding; see GS 1949, 38-415 This act shall be liberally construed, to the end that its purposes may be carried out, to wit, that the care, custody and discipline of a child shall approximate, as nearly as may be, proper parental care; and in all cases where the same can be properly done, that a child may be placed in an approved family home, by legal adoption or otherwise. And in no case shall any proceedings, order or judgment of the juvenile court, in cases coming within the purview of this act, be deemed or held to import a criminal act on the part of any child but all proceedings, orders and judgments shall be deemed to have been taken and done in the exercise of the parental power of the state. G.S. 1949, 38-415. (Emphasis added).
    15. 15. Parental Power Police Power Orders and judgments shall be deemed to have been taken and done in the exercise of the parental power of the state.
    16. 16. Constitutional Challenges Laid to Rest! Criminal procedures were deemed entirely inappropriate. The framework for juvenile court was idealic and the State did all it could to be a good parent. Good parents don’t have to give children constitutional rights and neither does the State!
    17. 17. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania 1971 The last time the right to jury trial was addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court was in McKeiver. The Supreme Court found in a plurality opinion that if it were to grant jury trial in juvenile proceedings that it would be essentially disrupting what it termed the “prospect of an intimate, informal, protective proceeding.” The court was concerned that it would cause the death of parens patriae, and so the court ruled that it could not go that far unless the juvenile system became essentially a criminal system and at that time (1971) it had not gone that far. The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, but some states have done so.
    18. 18. Kansas After McKeiver In the early 1980’s the systems were split so that children charged with crimes could have an attorney and not a GAL, and the legislature sought to distinguish the approach taken. Since then have been only a few challenges to get a right to trial by jury for juveniles, all unsuccessful. Later, in 1996 the entire concept of parens patriae was entirely removed from the statute and then in 1996 the Court ruled that juvenile “Convictions” could be used against an adult and that was solidified in State v. Hitt in 2002.
    19. 19. Kansas Cases In Re Findlay (1984) In Re A.C.W. (1999) In Re L.A. (2001) Were these cases good law, and had Kansas come full circle? Was Kansas more punitive than rehabilitative? The arguments crafted in the L.M. case centered around the McKeiver case and around the changes made in the Kansas Juvenile Justice System .
    20. 20. Parental Power Police Power Orders and judgments shall be deemed to have been taken and done in the exercise of the parental power of the state.
    21. 21. Police Power is Police Power Orders and judgments shall be deemed to be criminal convictions and can be used against them. When a child is accused he/she is labeled as a criminal and can face incarceration (Liberty Interests are certainly at stake).
    22. 22. Juvenile Offender Court is a Criminal Prosecution! It’s not just a civil proceeding to find a kid to be a juvenile delinquent. . .
    23. 23. The Kansas Supreme Court Was Brave! Juveniles charged with crime. Kansas Supreme Court! “. . . we are undaunted in our belief that juveniles are entitled to the right to a jury trial guaranteed to all citizens under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. . . we conclude that the proceedings under the KJJC fit within the meaning of the phrase ‘all prosecutions’ as set forth in §10 [of the Kansas Constitution], and juveniles have a right to a jury trial under the Kansas Constitution.”
    24. 24. UNDAUNT EDundaunted - courageously resolute especially in the face of danger or difficulty : not discouraged. Not discouraged or disheartened; resolutely courageous.
    25. 25. In Re L.M., 186 P.3d 164 (Kan. 2008)
    26. 26. Problems With L.M. Case! • It is BROAD and gives little guidance. • It has revolutionized the juvenile system and set in motion an overwhelming task for prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys. • May require juvenile courts to be redesigned. • May make juvenile courts more penal in nature. • May create backlash with overzealous P-O-ed prosecutors (more certifications). • May raise taxes, potentially VERY COSTLY!
    27. 27. Good things about L.M. Case • Juvenile offenders now have additional protections as a tool. • May curb prosecutors from overcharging kids. • Gives children charged with crime more leverage in working out plea deals. • Gives children a buffer from “quick to convict” judges. • Kids are able to prevent getting the worst of both worlds.
    28. 28. Immediate Effects of L.M. Has anyone experienced any immediate effects of the L.M. decision? http://inrelm.blogspot.com
    29. 29. In Re J.R.A., 38 Kan.App.2d 86 (2007) This is a case about statutory construction. As a result of the case the legislature has already reacted. Legislation has been enacted to fix the hole that allowed the juvenile to get through it. Even though this is the case it is still a useful case because it shows how strict the courts are on statutory construction, especially in juvenile cases.
    30. 30. In Re P.L.B.,190 P.3d 274 (2008) The elements of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea are outlined. The Court got very technical in its analysis of a plea in a juvenile case and required a reversal because the district court did not follow the requirements of K.S.A 38-2344.
    31. 31. K.S.A. 38-2344 The statute requires that the trial court inform the juvenile of the following: (1) the nature of the charge; (2) the presumption of innocence; (3) the right to a speedy trial; (4) the right to subpoena witnesses; (5) the right to testify or not to testify, and (6) the sentencing alternatives the trial court may impose. Failure to do what is required in K.S.A. 38-2344 basically opens the door for the juvenile to challenge the validity of the plea. Failure to follow the statute will require reversal
    32. 32. In Re Z.C., 2007 Utah 54 (2007) This is not a Kansas Case, but it is important to note because it calls into question the charging of children under fourteen with statutory rape, especially when the other child is also subject to prosecution under the law. The Court articulates a rarely used doctrine, ridiculous and absurd results.
    33. 33. In Re Z.C., 2007 Utah 54 (2007) Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court the Utah court articulated the absurd results doctrine as follows: The absurd results canon of statutory construction recognizes that although “the plain language interpretation of a statute enjoys a robust presumption in its favor, it is also true that [a legislative body] cannot, in every instance, be counted on to have said what it meant or to have meant what it said." FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 638 (1982) (O'Connor, J., dissenting). The Court, even though concise in its reasoning, narrowly confined the ruling to only apply to situations where no true victim or perpetrator is identifiable.
    34. 34. More Constitutional Issues in Juvenile Court Paul Shipp
    35. 35. The Most Notable Rights! The juvenile-defendant has the right. . . • To a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions • To know the nature of the charge • To the presumption of innocence, State’s burden (BRD) • The right to a speedy public trial (without unnecessary delay) • The right to subpoena witnesses (to defend) • The right to confront his accuser(s) • The right against self incrimination (Miranda, 5th Amend) • The right to competent counsel • The right to be left alone and not subject to unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment)
    36. 36. Preliminary Hearings & Probable Cause The interesting question in juvenile court is why it is okay for a prosecutor to just file a complaint in juvenile court, without any judicial oversight. The fourth amendment requires that, “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ” In spite of the warrant requirement the Juvenile Court procedure requires no judicial review before the case can proceed. This is an interesting question that should be raised. It is possible that it has already been raised. . .
    37. 37. Right to Bond Does a juvenile have the right to be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty? In juvenile courts it is not unusual to have a younger child involved with young adults, 18 and over, where the adult is able to bond out of jail and be free, where the juvenile is detained, or placed into the immediate custody of the Juvenile Justice Authority for placement outside of the home. Does this make any sense?
    38. 38. 5th Amendment, Miranda Rights
    39. 39. Special Rules Regarding Interrogating Children K.S.A. 38-2333 is effective when a child is less than 14 years of age. No admission or confession resulting from interrogation while in custody or under arrest may be admitted into evidence unless the confession or admission was made following a consultation between the juvenile’s parent or attorney as to whether the juvenile will waive the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination. It shall be the duty of the facility where the juvenile has been delivered to make a reasonable effort to contact the parent immediately upon the juvenile’s arrival.
    40. 40. Cop’s actual statements You don’t get to decide if you talk to me. Your mom does is the gist of it, and this is exactly what the cop said: And before I ask you specific questions, Okay, let me tell you a thing or two, you know your Miranda rights, I take it, Okay,. . . I am going to go ahead and review the same thing, your moms already told me I can talk to you, I just want to go ahead and let you know. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can an will be used against you you have the right to an attorney, and ya' have the right to have an attorney present with you an you also have the right to stop any questioning , Okay, alright, now…
    41. 41. More Special Rules Regarding Interrogating Children “. . . when, as here, a mere child – an easy victim of the law – is before us, special care in scrutinizing the record must be used. Age 15 is a tender and difficult age for a boy of any race. He cannot be judged by the more exacting standards of maturity. That which would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens.” The U.S. Supreme Court
    42. 42. Donesay/Young Filter The courts in Kansas require the following factors are to be considered when determining whether the confession of a juvenile is voluntary: (1)the age of the minor, (2)the length of the questioning, (3)the minor’s education, (4)the minor’s prior experience with the police, (5)the minor’s mental state. The state must show that under the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile ’s confession/admissions were voluntary.
    43. 43. 4th Amendment The best case to read on this issue is In Re L.A., 270 Kan. 879 ; 21 P.3d 952 (2001). The last section of the case that deals with the juvenile ’ s right to jury trial is now bad law, but the rest of the case is full of excellent analysis. There are so many treatises out there on the Fourth Amendment that an analysis of those issues is not going to be attempted here. The most important issue here is whether the attorneys representing children are actually analyzing cases and apply this most important constitutional principle.
    44. 44. Use of Juvenile Adjudications to Enhance Adult Sentences Use of Juvenile Adjudications to enhance adult sentences. The Kansas Supreme Court has held in the past that juvenile adjudications can now be used to enhance sentences in adult criminal cases, even though such adjudications were obtained without the full panoply of due process rights provided to adults in criminal cases. K.S.A. 21-4710; State v. LaMunyon, 259 Kan. 54, 911 P.2d 44 (1996). In State v. Hitt , 273 Kan. 224, 42 P.3d 732 (2002) the Kansas Supreme Court seemingly solidified the constitutionality of allowing this to occur, but now that we have L.M. should the court revisit the question?
    45. 45. The End