BY ANDY TAYLOR

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a ruling that originated in a Montgomery County murder case.

In the case Kansas vs. Ventris, the nation’s highest court ruled 5-2 that a statement from an informant was admissible to impeach a defendant’s inconsistent testimony at trial.

In the case, Donnie Ray Ventris and Rhonda Theel were charged with murder and other crimes. Prior to trial, an informant planted in Ventris’s jail cell heard Ventris admit to shooting and robbing the victim, but Ventris testified at trial that Theel committed the crimes. When the State of Kansas sought to call the informant to testify to his contradictory statement, Ventris objected. The State of Kansas conceded that Ventris’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had likely been violated, but argued that the statement was admissible for impeachment purposes.

The trial court allowed the testimony. The jury convicted Ventris of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. Reversing the conviction, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the informant’s statements were not admissible for any reason, including impeachment.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

“The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court will give law enforcement and prosecutors the direction and tools they need to fight crime in Kansas and across the country,” Kansas Attorney General Six said. “I’m proud our office was able to claim victory in front of our nation’s highest court.”

As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, Ventris’s conviction and 20-year sentence for aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery are reinstated and the case will continue for further proceedings in the Kansas courts.

Solicitor General Stephen R. McAllister argued on behalf of Kansas on January 21, 2009.