Kansas appellate court upholds constitutionality of state law criminalizing sexual relations between teacher and student enrolled at the same school
State of Kansas v. Edwards, No. 106,435 (Kan. App. Ct. Nov. 2, 2012)
Abstract: The Kansas Court of Appeals has ruled that a state law making it a crime for a teacher to engage in sexual relations with a student enrolled at the school where the teacher is employed is constitutional. The appellate court concluded: ?Because the statute applied in this case implicitly recognizes the disparity of power inherent in the teacher/student relationship, we conclude that the right of privacy does not encompass the right of a high school teacher to have sex with students enrolled in the same school system.?
The appellate court rejected the teacher?s argument that two other state appellate courts had declined to find a teacher civilly liable for sexual relations with a student, thus rendering Kansas? criminal law unconstitutional. Instead, it found that the State had demonstrated that it ?has a legitimate interest in keeping the environment of those children required by law to attend school safe and free from sexual coercion from those in positions of authority or trust,? thus providing a rational basis for the law.
Facts/Issues: Charles Edwards was employed by Wichita Unified School District No. 259 as a choir teacher. A.C.A was enrolled as a student at the same school where Edwards was teaching. At the time she engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with Edwards, she was 18 years old, the age of majority, and was not married to him.
Edwards was charged criminally under?K.S.A. 21-3520(a)(8), which defines unlawful sexual relations as engaging in consensual sexual intercourse, lewd fondling or touching, or sodomy with a person who is not married to the offender if ?the offender is a teacher or a person in a position of authority and the person with whom the offender is engaging in [the prohibited conduct] is a student enrolled at the school where the offender is employed.?
The trial court found Edwards guilty of unlawful sexual relations in violation of the statute. Edwards appealed his conviction, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional because it infringes upon a privacy right,?i.e., the right to engage in private, consensual sexual conduct, protected by both the United States and Kansas Constitutions.
Ruling/Rationale: The Kansas Court of Appeals upheld Edwards? conviction, finding the statute at issue to be constitutional. The appellate court began its analysis by examining whether there is a constitutionally protected right of privacy. Based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, it concluded that there is a court-recognized right to privacy, but cautioned ?that liberty must never be confused with license.?
The appellate court then examined the language of the statute in question, determining that ?it is clear that the intent of this statute is to prohibit sexual conduct of certain persons who have authority over other persons where the ability to freely consent is questionable.?
The appellate court?then looked at the?right at stake, i.e.,?whether teachers have a right to consensual, private sex with their students, to determine if it is a fundamental right. Based on its review of state and federal cases on the issue, the court agreed with the State and concluded that the ?teacher/student sexual relationship is not a relationship that warrants protection as a fundamental right.?
As a result, the court applied the rational basis test in reviewing the statute to see if the State has a legitimate interest. In addressing that question, the appellate court found that Kansas has such a legitimate interest in criminalizing sexual relations between teachers and students at the same school (regardless of the student?s age), because students are situated in a relationship (teacher-student) where ?consent?may not be easily refused.? Also, the statute ?does not infringe upon any sexual activity unrelated to the job of teachers and does not prevent teachers from having sexual relationships with adults who are not students.?
The appellate court rejected Edwards? reliance on Paschal v. State, 2012 WL 1034538 (Ark. Apr. 2012), in which the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that a state statute criminalizing sexual conduct between a teacher and a student (who is younger than 21) violated the Arkansas Constitution. The appellate court distinguished the Arkansas law on the basis that it ?did not specifically state that the teacher?s behavior was criminal because he or she is in a position of trust or authority.? The appellate court pointed out that ?in contrast to the Arkansas crime, our Kansas statute does recognize the aspect of authority.? The appellate court, therefore, found that there was a rational basis for the Kansas law.
Lastly, as to Edwards? argument that Idaho and Iowa courts have refused to find civil liability based on a teacher?s sexual relations with a student, the appellate court responded that that fact does not make Kansas? criminal statute unconstitutional. It noted that ?Edwards cites no support for the proposition that there can be no criminal liability where there is no corresponding civil liability.? In addition, the court pointed out that ?other courts have held a student does have an action against a teacher for an alleged violation of the Fourteenth Amendment ? as a basis for a 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 claim ? when there was a consensual sexual relationship between the student and teacher.?
State of Kansas v. Edwards, No. 106,435 (Kan. App. Ct. Nov. 2, 2012)
[Editor's Note: In April 2012, Legal Clips summarized the Paschal decision, in which the Arkansas Supreme Court, in a 4-3 split, ruled that a state law making it a crime for a K-12 teacher to engage in consensual sexual contact?with a student who is an adult student violated the state constitution. The court's majority determined that the?state constitution recognizes?a ?fundamental right to privacy implicit in our law? that ?protects all private, consensual, noncommercial acts of sexual intimacy between adults.? While it acknowledged that it was possible that the state legislature ?intended to criminalize a teacher?s use of his or her position of trust or authority over an adult student to procure sex,? the majority pointed out the law contained no language indicating such an intent.]
Source: http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=17098
chris carter superbowl 2012 kickoff time what time is the super bowl 2012 nfl mvp lana del rey snl performance nick diaz sheryl sandberg
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.