Previous | Next

§ 9. Bail; fines; cruel and unusual punishment. All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties except for capital offenses, where proof is evident or the presumption great. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.

History: Adopted by convention, July 29, 1859; ratified by electors, October 4, 1859; L. 1861, p. 48.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

New Approaches to Pre-Trial Detention, Paul E. Wilson, 39 J.B.A.K. 13, 58 (1970).

Notes on the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Article 28 of chapter 22) Richard H. Seaton and Paul E. Wilson, 39 J.B.A.K. 97, 163 (1970).

Symposium on criminal procedure, Robert L. Looney, 18 K.L.R. 715, 725 (1970).

Constitutional Law: Equal Protection for Indigents in the Bail System, Michael K. Johnston, 17 W.L.J. 648, 656 (1978).

Criminal Procedure Review: Survey of Recent Cases, 44 K.L.R. 895 (1996).

Constitutional Law: Can a Convicted Rapist be Sentenced to Death for Raping a Child Under Twelve Years of Age? Angelyn L. Miller, 37 W.L.J. 187 (1997).

Scarlet Letters, Bilboes and Cable TV: Are Shame Punishments Cruel and Outdated or Are They a Viable Option for American Jurisprudence? Scott E. Sanders, 37 W.L.J. 359 (1997).

Survey of Recent Cases, 46 K.L.R. 925 (1998).

Does Public Access to Sex Offender Registration Information Under the Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act Constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment? [State v. Scott, 961 P.2d 667 (Kan. 1998)], Marti Paulsen, 38 W.L.J. 727 (1999).

The Kansas Bill of Rights: 'Glittering Generalities' or Legal Authority, Kirk Redmond and David Miller, 69 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 18 (2000).

Reduction in the Protection for Mentally Ill Criminal Defendants: Kansas Upholds the Replacement of the M'Naughten Approach with the Mens Rea Approach, Effectively Eliminating the Insanity Defense [State v. Bethel, 66 P.3d 840 (Kan. 2003)], Jenny Williams, 44 W.L.J. 213 (2004).

Criminal Procedure Survey, 56 K.L.R. 747 (2008).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Hard labor in penitentiary, not cruel or unusual punishment. The State v. White, 44 Kan. 514, 520, 25 P. 33.

2. Punishment provided by K.S.A. 21-1909 held not cruel or unusual. In re Tutt, Petitioner, 55 Kan. 705, 41 P. 957.

3. Fine and jail sentence held not cruel or unusual punishment. Ratcliff v. Stockyards Co., 74 Kan. 1, 6, 16, 86 P. 150.

4. Crime committed when penalty is death, amended afterwards, not bailable. In re Schneck, 78 Kan. 207, 208, 210, 96 P. 43.

5. Confinement when unable to pay fine and costs, not violative. In re Ellis, 76 Kan. 368, 370, 372, 91 P. 81. Questioned: Mikesell v. Wilson County, 82 Kan. 502, 507, 108 P. 829.

6. Defendant after conviction of felony is entitled to bail. In re Truskett, 84 Kan. 869, 870, 877, 115 P. 575.

7. Desertion and nonsupport act not unconstitutional because punishment is unusual. The State v. Gillmore, 88 Kan. 835, 845, 129 P. 1123.

8. Execution against person; fraud; not cruel and unusual punishment. Tatlow v. Bacon, 101 Kan. 26, 165 P. 835.

9. Appeal bonds in misdemeanor cases; statute not unconstitutional. The State v. Coletti, 102 Kan. 523, 524, 170 P. 995.

10. Persons charged with murder in first degree are bailable. In re Ball, 106 Kan. 536, 537, 188 P. 424.

11. Party cannot be imprisoned until divorce decree performed where performance impossible. Davison v. Davison, 125 Kan. 807, 266 P. 650.

12. Judgment imposing consecutive periods of imprisonment on different counts valid. In re MacLean, 147 Kan. 678, 680, 78 P.2d 855.

13. Capital offense one for which death penalty may be inflicted. State v. Christensen, 165 Kan. 585, 587, 195 P.2d 592.

14. Conviction of first degree murder; death penalty not assessed; no right to bail. State v. Christensen, 165 Kan. 585, 587, 195 P.2d 592.

15. Bail properly denied to person charged with first-degree kidnapping. State v. Woods, 191 Kan. 433, 434, 381 P.2d 533. Certiorari denied: 376 U.S. 919, 84 S. Ct. 676, 11 L.Ed.2d 615.

16. Failure of county attorney to enter formal order fixing appearance bond not denial of bail hereunder. State v. McCarther, 196 Kan. 665, 673, 414 P.2d 59.

17. Commitment under "sex offenders act" (K.S.A. 62-1534 et seq.), not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. English, 198 Kan. 196, 201, 206, 209, 210, 424 P.2d 601.

18. Sentence under habitual criminal act (K.S.A. 21-107a) does not impose cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Coutcher, 198 Kan. 282, 286, 289, 424 P.2d 865.

19. Death penalty for murder is not cruel and unusual punishment, either per se or as applied to defendant. State v. Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. 6, 18, 19, 439 P.2d 99.

20. Life imprisonment of seventeen-year-old boy pursuant to K.S.A. 21-449 not cruel or unusual punishment. Davis v. State, 204 Kan. 816, 821, 466 P.2d 311.

21. Bail reasonable in first degree robbery case. State v. Burgess, 205 Kan. 224, 226, 468 P.2d 229.

22. K.S.A. 21-534 as enchanced by K.S.A. 21-107a held not cruel and unusual punishment. Cipolla v. State, 207 Kan. 822, 824, 486 P.2d 1391.

23. Cited in case involving rights of inmates confined to penal institutions. Levier v. State, 209 Kan. 442, 445, 497 P.2d 265.

24. K.S.A. 21-3611 does not provide cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Sherk, 217 Kan. 726, 734, 538 P.2d 1399.

25. Detention of juvenile and denial of bail did not contravene federal or state constitutions; application of juvenile code. Pauley v. Gross, 1 Kan. App. 2d 736, 738, 743, 574 P.2d 234.

26. Court did not abuse discretion in fixing bail. State v. Dunnan, 223 Kan. 428, 430, 573 P.2d 1068.

27. Confinement in Kansas penal institution with an outstanding out-of-state detainer on parole violation did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Beard v. Maynard, 223 Kan. 631, 635, 576 P.2d 611.

28. The nature of a sentence as cruel or unusual encompasses duration. State v. McDaniel and Owens, 228 Kan. 172, 185, 612 P.2d 1231.

29. Prohibition against infliction of cruel or unusual punishment relates to more than inherent cruelty in method of punishment; criteria discussed. State v. Weigel, 228 Kan. 194, 203, 612 P.2d 636.

30. Denial of light bulb for jail cell and change of clothes for two weeks not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Rouse, 229 Kan. 600, 605, 629 P.2d 167 (1981).

31. The fine imposed by trial court for driving an overweight truck was done correctly and was not excessive. State v. Gibson, 8 Kan. App. 2d 135, 138, 651 P.2d 949 (1982).

32. Restrictions placed on inmate because of segregated confinement and location of confinement not cruel and unusual punishment. Turner v. Maschner, 11 Kan. App. 2d 134, 715 P.2d 425 (1986).

33. When considering fines, court must also consider provisions herein. State v. Scherer, 11 Kan. App. 2d 362, 370, 721 P.2d 743 (1986).

34. Criteria for length of sentence to constitute cruel and unusual punishment examined and applied. State v. Strauch, 239 Kan. 203, 220, 718 P.2d 613 (1986).

35. Three elements to be considered by appellate court as to whether length of sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment examined. State v. Tyler, 251 Kan. 616, 646, 840 P.2d 413 (1992).

36. Whether court's failure to find mitigating circumstances in hard 40 sentencing constituted cruel and unusual punishment examined. State v. Gideon, 257 Kan. 591, 610, 894 P.2d 850 (1995).

37. Whether defendant's sentence is so excessive and disproportionate that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment examined. State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 3, 891 P.2d 324 (1995).

38. Contention that disclosure provision of sex offender registration act (K.S.A. 22-4909) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment refused consideration for first time on appeal. State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669, 700, 923 P.2d 1024 (1996).

39. KSORA (K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq.) registration requirement constitutional; unrestricted public access to inmate's registration information constituted cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Scott, 24 Kan. App. 2d 480, 481, 947 P.2d 466 (1997).

40. Action filed against district judges concerning pretrial release procedures dismissed under KTCA (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.) judicial function exception. Smith v. State, 264 Kan. 348, 351, 356, 360, 955 P.2d 1293 (1998).

41. Under facts, application of registration and notification provisions of KSORA (K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq.) did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Scott, 265 Kan. 1, 5, 961 P.2d 667 (1998).

42. Imposition of hard 40 sentence does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment (shooting of dispatcher in escape from jail). State v. Spain, 269 Kan. 54, 4 P.3d 621 (2000).

43. Difference of opinion between inmate and medical staff regarding treatment received does not equate to cruel and unusual punishment. Darnell v. Simmons, 30 Kan. App. 2d 778, 48 P.3d 1278 (2002).

44. State not required to adopt any particular insanity test; provisions of K.S.A. 22-3220 are constitutional. State v. Bethel, 275 Kan. 456, 66 P.3d 840 (2003).

45. Requiring convicted sex offender to admit guilt in offender treatment program not violative of privilege against self-incrimination nor constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. McComb v. State, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1037, 94 P.3d 715 (2004).

46. Cited; constitutionality of K.S.A. 21-4624(e) weighing equation upheld. State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 87–89, 91–95, 98, 183 P.3d 801 (2008).

47. Cited; mandatory imprisonment for sex crime, mitigating circumstances insufficient for downward departure sentence. State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 159, 194 P.3d 1195 (2008).

48. Denial of downward departure sentence upheld; principles relating to cruel or unusual punishment discussed. State v. Thomas, 288 Kan. 157, 199 P.3d 1265 (2009).

49. Defendant failed to raise alleged cruel and unusual sentence violation at trial level; sentence upheld. State v. Spotts, 288 Kan. 650, 206 P.3d 510 (2009).

50. Defendant abandons argument that life sentence violates right against cruel and unusual punishment. State v. White, 289 Kan. 279, 211 P.3d 805 (2009).

51. No constitutional violation found in purported disproportionate sentence. State v. Gonzales, 289 Kan. 351, 212 P.3d 215 (2009).

52. Court refuses to find cruel or unusual punishment for sentence under K.S.A. 21-4643. State v. Easterling, 289 Kan. 470, 213 P.3d 418 (2009).

53. Three-part test applied to disproportionality challenge. State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010).

54. Case remanded for defendant to articulate specific grounds for his constitutional challenge. State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568, 243 P.3d 352 (2010).

55. Where convicted defendant failed to sufficiently raise the issue of whether imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision was cruel and unusual punishment in trial court failed to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 260 P.3d 86 (2011).

56. Lifetime postrelease supervision imposed on a defendant who committed aggravated indecent liberties with a 4-year-old boy does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 424, 284 P.3d 309 (2012).

57. Mandatory minimum detention policies for DUI drivers that fail to require an individualized determination. State v. Rickerson, 47 Kan. App. 2d 648, 276 P.3d 240 (2012).

58. Defendant's hard 25 life sentences for rape and aggravated criminal sodomy not unconstitutional. State v. Seward, 296 Kan. 979, 297 P.3d 272 (2013).

59. Defendant's hard 25 life sentences for rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child not unconstitutional. State v. Newcomb, 296 Kan. 1012, 298 P.3d 285 (2013).

60. Defendant's sentence held constitutional; he must serve 25 years before he is eligible for parole; lifetime postrelease supervision vacated. State v. Conrad, 297 Kan. 76, 298 P.3d 320 (2013).

61. A hard 25 life sentence held constitutional; lifetime postrelease supervision vacated. State v. Rogers, 297 Kan. 83, 298 P.3d 325 (2013).

62. Defendant's lifetime postrelease supervision held not unconstitutionally disproportionate. State v. Toahty-Harvey, 297 Kan. 101, 298 P.3d 338 (2013).

63. Defendant's three concurrent hard 25 life sentences does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Miller, 297 Kan. 516, 304 P.3d 1221 (2013).

64. Hard 25 sentence for aggravated indecent liberties with a child is not disproportionally harsh when compared with punishments imposed for homicide. State v. Boleyn, 297 Kan. 610, 303 P.3d 680 (2013).

65. Hard 25 life sentence does not categorically violate prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Ruggles, 297 Kan. 675, 304 P.3d 338 (2013).

66. Defendant's hard 25 life sentence under Jessica's Law for rape not disproportional and thus not impermissible. State v. Ochs, 297 Kan. 1094, 306 P.3d 294 (2013).

67. The imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision for the crime of indecent liberties with a child is not grossly disproportionate to the sentence imposed for other "more serious" offenses. State v. Marion, 50 Kan. App. 2d 802, 811, 333 P.3d 194 (2014).

68. Lifetime postrelease supervision for crime of attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child is not categorically disproportionate in violation of the 8th Amendment. State v. Reed, 51 Kan. App. 2d 107, 115, 341 P.3d 616 (2015).

69. Preserving on appeal a challenge to a sentence as cruel and unusual under section 9 of the bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas does not automatically preserve a related issue under the 8th Amendment to the U.S. constitution; each issue must be briefed separately. State v. Funk, 301 Kan. 925, 932, 349 P.3d 1230 (2015).

70. Hard 25 sentence imposed under Jessica's law does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment under section 9 of the bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas. State v. Swint, 302 Kan. 326, 346, 352 P.3d 1014 (2015).

71. Kansas offender registration act's requirement of lifetime sex offender registration is not a form of punishment for the purpose of applying Kansas' constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192, 194, 377 P.3d 1127 (2016).

72. Lifetime registration requirements for sex offenders under the Kansas offender registration act are not a "punishment" for purposes of cruel and unusual punishment analysis. State v. Rocheleau, 307 Kan. 761, 765–66, 415 P.3d 422 (2018).

73. A defendant's failure to object to the lack of a district court's factual findings at sentencing and the failure to file a motion makes the constitutionality of a sentence not amenable to appellate review. State v. Espinoza, 311 Kan. 435, 437, 462 P.3d 159 (2020).