State of Kansas, Appellee v. Michael Jordan, Appellant

Summary

The court held that Kansas's compulsory-joinder statute does not bar a later prosecution unless evidence admitted in the earlier prosecution was sufficient to support a conviction for the later-charged crime. Although the court retained that sufficiency requirement, it clarified that the evidence need only be capable of supporting a conviction, not necessarily such that a rational factfinder would convict. Because the earlier traffic-offense trial contained no evidence sufficient to establish all elements of theft by deception, Jordan's later prosecution and conviction were affirmed. Johnson, J., dissenting, would have applied the statute according to its plain language and barred the later prosecution based on the admission of any evidence of the charged crime.