State v. Anderson
276 P.3d 200
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Anderson was convicted of intentional second-degree murder and reckless aggravated battery after a downtown Lawrence shooting following a rap concert.
- There were multiple eyewitnesses and video evidence from the promoter’s footage; the video captured but did not show the shootings themselves.
- DNA on the murder weapon linked to Anderson, and his ex-girlfriend testified he admitted killing Williams after Williams confronted his friend.
- Several witnesses described a suspect wearing a tan/brown jacket; Anderson inconsistently claimed he left the scene before shots.
- Anderson did not testify; the defense challenged DNA evidence and argued alternative suspects or motives.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review to address eyewitness certainty instruction, prosecutorial misconduct, right to testify, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eyewitness instruction error | Anderson | Anderson | Instruction error; degree of certainty factor improper |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Anderson | State | Comments improper but harmless |
| Right to testify sua sponte inquiry | Anderson | State | No duty to inquire; right not violated |
| Cumulative error | Anderson | State | Cumulative error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mitchell, 294 Kan. _, 275 P.3d 905 (2012) (eyewitness certainty factor should not mislead jury; Mitchell adopted cautionary instruction)
- State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 635 P.2d 1236 (1981) (eyewitness identification cautions baseline)
- State v. McKinney, 221 Kan. 691, 561 P.2d 432 (1977) (right to testify scope and waivers (Taylor lineage))
- Taylor v. State, 252 Kan. 98, 843 P.2d 682 (1992) (no sua sponte duty to inquire about right to testify)
- State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 269 P.3d 1268 (2012) (prosecutorial closing argument standards; improper but not reversible here)
- State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 162 P.3d 799 (2007) (de novo review of constitutional claims)
- State v. Martinez, 290 Kan. 992, 236 P.3d 481 (2010) (prosecutorial remark and sympathy considerations)
- State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 172 P.3d 1165 (2007) (closing argument considerations)
- State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608, 44 P.3d 466 (2002) (emotive appeals in closing arguments)