KTKA-Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Robert William Richardson. In November, 2007, a Lyon County judge found the then-30-year-old man guilty of knowingly exposing two women who weren't aware he was infected with the virus.
He had been previously convicted on four counts of exposing three women to HIV in Douglas County.
In its ruling Friday, the state Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a statute making it a crime to knowingly infect someone with a life-threatening communicable disease if intent to do so is proven. In a statement, the court said it had "determined that intent to infect two women with the virus was not proven at trial."
The court's decision read, in part, "the record reveals that, at trial, the State failed to prove circumstances
from which a rational factfinder could reasonably infer that the defendant had the specific intent
to expose either M.K. or E.Z. to HIV. Instead, the State has asked us to infer or presume the
requisite circumstantial evidence of specific intent from other circumstances or inferences. Such
a presumption upon a presumption is insufficient to carry the State's burden. Accordingly, we
find the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and reverse in both cases."
He had been previously convicted on four counts of exposing three women to HIV in Douglas County.
In its ruling Friday, the state Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a statute making it a crime to knowingly infect someone with a life-threatening communicable disease if intent to do so is proven. In a statement, the court said it had "determined that intent to infect two women with the virus was not proven at trial."
The court's decision read, in part, "the record reveals that, at trial, the State failed to prove circumstances
from which a rational factfinder could reasonably infer that the defendant had the specific intent
to expose either M.K. or E.Z. to HIV. Instead, the State has asked us to infer or presume the
requisite circumstantial evidence of specific intent from other circumstances or inferences. Such
a presumption upon a presumption is insufficient to carry the State's burden. Accordingly, we
find the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and reverse in both cases."
No comments:
Post a Comment