Next week, the Kansas Supreme Court will hear an appeal in a Lyon County sex assault case involving an adult and a teenager.
The case of State v. Jose Alberto Gonzalez-Sandoval went from Lyon County District Court to the Kansas Court of Appeals after Gonzalez-Sandoval, 45, was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties against a child in 2015. Gonzalez-Sandoval appealed on numerous grounds. The Kansas Court of Appeals agreed two of the appellate points had merit, so it reversed the district court conviction, vacated the resulting sentence and sent the case back to district court for a new trial.
The state then appealed to the state high court, saying the Court of Appeals made errors of its own when making its findings.
The Kansas Supreme Court has the case slated for Oct. 24. It could be several months before it issues a ruling.
Kansas Supreme Court brief on State v. Jose Alberto Gonzalez-Sandoval
Lyon County: (Petition for Review) Gonzalez-Sandoval was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. In his direct appeal, he argues he is entitled to reversal of his conviction and a new trial because the district court erred: 1) when ruling on his Batson jury challenges; 2) when denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and 3) when it allowed the victim to testify about his alleged prior sexual misconduct with her. Gonzalez-Sandoval also maintained the State’s evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Court of Appeals found Gonzalez-Sandoval’s first two issues to be meritorious and reversed his conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for a new trial. The State appealed. Issues on appeal are whether the Court of Appeals erred: 1) when it concluded the prosecutor’s strike of a minority individual summoned for jury duty was racially motivated in violation of Batson v. Kentucky because the prosecution relied on mistaken information to support its race-neutral explanation even though, upon learning of the mistake, it brought it to the court’s attention and then offered additional information to support its race-neutral explanation; and 2) when it ruled the State must reveal information it has about minority individuals summoned for jury duty—and challenge those individuals with that information during voir dire—before it can rely on that information in making a peremptory strike.
