Can You Assert Immunity from Prosecution at a Preliminary Hearing?
Yes, you can assert immunity from prosecution, such as self-defense, at a preliminary hearing. This was addressed in State v. Evans, 389 P.3d 1278 (Kan. 2017). The Kansas Supreme Court clarified that when a defendant raises a claim of justified use-of-force immunity at the preliminary hearing, the court must determine if the defendant’s use of force was justified as part of the probable cause determination.
Key Points from State v. Evans:
Asserting Immunity at a Preliminary Hearing:
A defendant can raise a defense of justified use of force, such as self-defense, at a preliminary hearing. When this occurs, the judge must not only assess whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime, but also whether the defendant's use of force was justified under Kansas statutes. This adds a crucial layer to the preliminary hearing process, ensuring that immunity from prosecution can be addressed early in the legal proceedings.
The Case of Evans:
In State v. Evans, Evans and another individual, Pena, were engaged in a friendly wrestling match, which escalated. Evans claimed he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Pena with a sword after Pena threatened to kill him and advanced towards him. Evans asserted immunity based on Kansas's self-defense laws, and the district court dismissed the charges, granting him immunity.
The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals reinstated the charges, stating that the evidence should have been viewed in the State's favor. However, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed this decision and held that when determining immunity, the court should not give deference to the State’s evidence. The district court had properly evaluated the credibility of the evidence and found the State did not meet its burden to prove that Evans' use of force was not justified.
Probable Cause and Justified Use of Force:
When immunity is raised, the judge at the preliminary hearing must look at the totality of the circumstances and weigh the evidence. The judge must determine whether the State has proven probable cause that the defendant's use of force was not justified under self-defense laws, without automatically favoring the State’s evidence. This means that the judge considers both the prosecution's and the defense's evidence equally, and does not automatically assume the State’s case is stronger.
Legal Burden on the State:
The burden falls on the State to show that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant’s use of force was not legally justified. In the Evans case, the State failed to meet this burden because the district court found that Pena's testimony was not credible and the other evidence supported Evans' claim of self-defense. Thus, the court properly dismissed the case at the preliminary hearing.
Immunity is Asserted Before Trial:
Raising a claim of justified use-of-force immunity, such as self-defense, allows the defendant to potentially have charges dismissed before trial. If the court finds that the use of force was justified and grants immunity, the case does not proceed to trial, avoiding the risk of conviction and the burdens of a full trial.
Conclusion:
In Kansas, a defendant can indeed assert immunity from prosecution, such as self-defense, at a preliminary hearing. The court must then assess whether the State has probable cause to believe that the defendant’s use of force was not justified, considering all the evidence without favoring the State. In State v. Evans, this principle was upheld when the Kansas Supreme Court confirmed that Evans’ self-defense immunity was properly raised and the charges were rightfully dismissed at the preliminary hearing.