The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision upholding a district court's judgment requiring Aaron Douglas Unruh to register as a violent offender for 15 years under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. The opinion, filed March 21, 2025, in case No. 122,472, established important precedent regarding appellate procedure while addressing constitutional challenges to offender registration requirements.

Unruh had pleaded no contest to two counts of aggravated endangerment of a child and one count of criminal restraint in Marion District Court before Judge Michael F. Powers. Before entering his plea, Unruh acknowledged without objection that he would be subject to violent offender registration for 15 years under K.S.A. 22-4902(e)(1)(H) and K.S.A. 22-4906(a)(1)(K).

Despite this acknowledgment, Unruh raised constitutional challenges on appeal, claiming that the Kansas Offender Registration Act violated his due process rights in two ways. First, he argued that KORA did not provide him an opportunity to contest the district court's "discretionary" factual findings that subjected him to registration. Second, he contended that KORA lacks a clear burden-of-proof standard for that fact-finding process.

The State objected to these arguments on preservation grounds, noting that Unruh had not raised these constitutional issues in the trial court. However, a Court of Appeals panel decided to address the arguments despite the preservation objection and ultimately rejected them on the merits in an unpublished opinion filed October 15, 2021.

The Kansas Supreme Court's per curiam opinion focused primarily on the procedural aspect of the case rather than the substantive constitutional questions. In its syllabus, the court established a clear rule: "When an insufficient record prevents resolving an issue raised for the first time on appeal, an appellate court abuses its discretion by invoking an exception to the general rule against doing so."

This holding reinforces the fundamental principle that appellate courts generally should not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, particularly when the trial court record is insufficient to properly analyze those issues. The rule serves important judicial efficiency and fairness purposes, ensuring that trial courts have the first opportunity to consider and rule on legal issues, and that appellate review is based on a complete factual and legal record.

The case progressed through multiple levels of Kansas courts over several years. After the Court of Appeals issued its unpublished opinion in October 2021, the Kansas Supreme Court granted review. Oral arguments were held March 30, 2023, with additional briefing completed May 1, 2023, before the final opinion was issued nearly two years later.

Darby VanHoutan of the Kansas Appellate Defender Office argued for Unruh, with Patrick H. Dunn joining on the briefs. The State was represented by Assistant Solicitor General Steven J. Obermeier, with former Attorney General Derek Schmidt and current Attorney General Kris W. Kobach joining on the briefs.

The Kansas Offender Registration Act requires certain convicted offenders to register with law enforcement agencies and comply with ongoing reporting requirements. The statute includes specific provisions for violent offenders, with registration periods varying based on the nature and severity of the underlying crimes. Aggravated endangerment of a child and criminal restraint, the charges to which Unruh pleaded no contest, fall within the categories of offenses that trigger registration requirements under the act.

Unruh's constitutional challenges focused on procedural due process concerns about how courts determine registration requirements. His arguments suggested that defendants should have greater procedural protections when courts make factual findings that trigger registration obligations, including clearer burden-of-proof standards and opportunities to contest those findings.

The Court of Appeals panel that initially heard the case decided to address these constitutional arguments despite preservation issues, ultimately concluding that KORA's procedures do not violate due process rights. However, the Kansas Supreme Court's affirmance appears to rest more on procedural grounds related to the preservation doctrine than on the merits of the constitutional claims.

The decision reinforces established appellate procedure while leaving some questions about the substantive constitutional issues unresolved. By focusing on the procedural rule about raising issues for the first time on appeal, the court avoided detailed analysis of the due process challenges to offender registration procedures.

This case demonstrates the ongoing tension between appellate courts' desire to address important constitutional questions and the need to maintain orderly judicial procedures that require issues to be properly preserved and developed in trial courts. The Kansas Supreme Court's approach emphasizes the importance of procedural regularity in the judicial system, even when constitutional rights may be at stake.

The affirmance means Unruh remains subject to the 15-year violent offender registration requirement under Kansas law. The procedural precedent established by the court's syllabus will likely influence how future appellate courts in Kansas handle similar preservation issues when constitutional challenges are raised for the first time on appeal.