The Need for Specificity: When Courts Must Require a Bill of Particulars

State v. Bee, 592 P.3d 355 (Kan. Ct. App. 2026)

Author: Staff Editor Eleanor Boone

Issue:  Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3201(f)?

Answer: Yes.  The court abused its discretion by arbitrarily and unreasonably denying the defendant’s request for a bill of particulars.

Facts:  The defendant’s ex-spouse, Kimberly Bee (“Kimberly”), secured an order of protection from abuse (“PFA”) against the defendant.  Kimberly alleged the defendant was violating the PFA order, primarily through messages sent through TalkingParents, a court-ordered app.  The State initially charged the defendant with one count of violating a protective order under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5924(a)(1).  After failed plea negotiations, the State amended the complaint to include twenty-seven counts.  The defendant moved for a bill of particulars under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3201(f), which was denied by the court.  The defendant appealed, arguing the court erred in denying his request because the charging document was insufficient to inform him of the charges and allow him to prepare a defense.

Discussion:  Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3201(f) allows courts to require a bill of particulars from the prosecution when a charging document “fails to specify the particulars of the crime sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare a defense.”  Here, the State’s twenty-seven counts were worded identically, except for the dates.  The Court reasoned that because the defendant sent numerous messages on many of the dates at issue, he could not accurately guess which messages formed the basis for the allegations.  The State did not identify the individual messages constituting the alleged violations, leaving the defendant unable to understand the charged offense and theory of violation, thus making his defense preparation “nearly impossible.”  The Court emphasized that the PFA order allowed certain communications concerning the child and property exchanges, further demonstrating the need for specificity.  The Court likened the case to State v. Panjada, where the State’s failure to specify which evidence supported the charges left the defendant guessing which acts constituted the alleged crimes. 

Key Authorities: 

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3201(f) 

State v. Panjada, No. 125,259 (Kan. Ct. App. 2023)