State v. Ashley, 396 P.3d 92

Background

Victim Gerry Grovenburg was shot to death May 12, 2010, in his liquor store; a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson casing was recovered.
Bruce J. Ashley, Jr. was later linked to gunfire at a separate June 4, 2010 shooting (DNA on casing and blood) and to blood and a casing in his girlfriend’s car; Ashley was hospitalized from that shooting.
Ashley made inconsistent statements to medical staff and police; police recovered a .40 cartridge from a storage locker matching the liquor-store casing.
Ashley’s cousin, Larry Marshall, testified that he and Ashley planned a liquor-store robbery and that Ashley carried a Glock and later told Marshall he thought he had shot someone; cell‑tower and canine-tracking evidence corroborated aspects of Marshall’s account.
Co-defendant/accomplice testimony, ballistics, phone records, DNA, and other evidence led to Ashley’s conviction for first-degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery; sentence: life (with parole ineligibility) plus consecutive term.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Ashley's Argument	Held
Whether a cautionary jury instruction on informant testimony (PIK Crim. 4th 51.100) was required for a jailhouse witness (Tyler Roberts)	Roberts was not acting as a State agent when he obtained the information; caution via cross-examination and disclosure of benefits sufficed	Requested instruction necessary because prison informant testimony is inherently unreliable and jurors needed explicit caution	Denied: no evidence Roberts acted as a State agent when he gained the information; instruction not supported by record and existing safeguards were adequate
Whether denial of a new trial based on newly discovered inmate testimony impeaching Marshall was an abuse of discretion	Newly proffered inmate statements were not credible and would not likely produce a different verdict given corroborating evidence	Newly discovered inmate declarations undermined Marshall’s trial testimony and could change the outcome	Denied: trial court reasonably found the inmates not credible and that the new evidence (largely impeachment) would not likely change the result; no abuse of discretion
Whether the K.S.A. 60-455 limiting instruction given (identification, plan, preparation, opportunity) was improper/overbroad	Prior-act evidence met K.S.A. 60-455 criteria and a limiting instruction is required; the instruction properly limited jury use to specified purposes	Instruction was overbroad and could suggest noncriminal conduct was criminal; objected to as prejudicial	Affirmed: instruction was legally correct, required when prior-crimes evidence is admitted, and supported by the evidence; no narrower instruction was requested

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lowe, 276 Kan. 957 (instructive on when informant caution is required — not required absent State-agent relationship)
State v. Abel, 261 Kan. 331 (same principle: cautionary instruction not required when witness was not agent for State)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (vigorous cross‑examination and instructions are appropriate means to attack weak but admissible evidence)
State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 242 (standard of review for jury-instruction challenges and preservation)
State v. Warren, 302 Kan. 601 (standards for motion for new trial review and newly discovered evidence)
State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419 (if prior-crimes evidence admissible under K.S.A. 60-455, a limiting instruction is required)
State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367 (limiting instruction language that confines jury to specified purposes is sufficient)