## Facts

- Keith W. Baker was cited for driving 77 mph in a 55-mph zone in Kansas.
- The charge was brought under K.S.A. 1976 Supp. 8-1336(a)(3).
- Before a bench trial, Baker proffered that his cruise control stuck in the “accelerate” position, causing the car to exceed the speed limit.
- Baker proffered that he tried to deactivate the cruise control by using the off and coast buttons and tapping the brakes, but these attempts were not immediately successful.
- Baker proffered that he later repaired the defective cruise control.
- The State moved to suppress the cruise-control evidence; the trial court granted the motion, preventing Baker from presenting it as a defense.
- With Baker presenting no evidence, the State’s proof was uncontradicted, and the trial court found Baker guilty and treated him as a “driver” under K.S.A. 8-1416.
- Baker appealed, arguing the excluded evidence was relevant to whether his excessive speed was a voluntary act of “driving,” not to criminal intent.

## Issues

1. In a speeding prosecution treated as an absolute-liability misdemeanor, is evidence of a mechanical malfunction admissible if offered solely to negate criminal intent?
2. Even if intent is not an element, is mechanical-malfunction evidence admissible to show the defendant did not voluntarily commit the proscribed act of “driving” at the unlawful speed under the statutory definition of “driver”?

## Decision

- The court held that speeding under K.S.A. 1976 Supp. 8-1336, read with K.S.A. 21-3204, is an absolute-liability offense; the State need not prove criminal intent.
- The court held that evidence of a defective cruise control would be properly excluded if offered only to negate intent.
- The court held the trial court erred by excluding the proffered cruise-control evidence insofar as it was offered to contest whether Baker voluntarily committed the act of driving at the prohibited speed.
- The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial at which Baker could present the mechanical-failure evidence on the “driving” element.

## Legal Principles

- The legislature may impose absolute liability for a misdemeanor, eliminating the need to prove criminal intent under K.S.A. 21-3204.
- Even for an absolute-liability offense, the prosecution must prove the defendant committed the prohibited act required by the statute.
- Evidence of mechanical malfunction is inadmissible when offered solely to dispute mens rea in an absolute-liability offense.
- Evidence of mechanical malfunction is admissible when it tends to show the defendant did not voluntarily engage in the proscribed conduct or was not “driving” within the statutory meaning.

## Conclusion

Speeding is an absolute-liability misdemeanor in Kansas, but the defendant may introduce credible mechanical-failure evidence to dispute whether he voluntarily committed the act of driving at an unlawful speed; excluding such evidence requires reversal and a new trial.


State v. Baker, 571 P.2d 65 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977)