State v. Barker, 128652

Background

Barker and Porter had a falling-out over missing vehicle parts, and Barker later threatened to shoot Porter and acted angrily toward Porter's grandmother hours before the killing. 1
Barker confronted Porter under a truck on Barker's lot, and Barker testified the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle as Porter grabbed it. 2
The State charged Barker with first-degree premeditated murder and related weapons offenses, and the State presented witness and forensic evidence suggesting an intentional close-range shot. 3
Barker testified the shooting was accidental and in self-defense, and the district court instructed on self-defense but not on lesser included homicide offenses. 4
The jury convicted Barker of first-degree premeditated murder, criminal possession of a weapon by a felon, and criminal carrying of brass knuckles. 5
On appeal, Barker challenged the omitted lesser-included-offense instructions and two prosecutor comments about premeditation. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Invited error barred review of omitted lesser instructions? 7	Barker only failed to request the instructions; he did not ask for their omission.	The State said Barker twice confirmed he was not requesting them.	No; Barker did not induce the omission, so review was allowed. 8
Second-degree intentional murder instruction required? 9	Barker said evidence supported an unpremeditated intentional killing.	The State said overwhelming premeditation made the instruction unnecessary.	Yes, the court erred by omitting it, but the error was not clearly erroneous. 10
Reckless murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter instructions required? 11	Barker said the struggle and accidental discharge supported reckless homicide.	The State said the evidence showed intentional homicide, not recklessness.	Yes, the court erred by omitting both instructions, but not clearly erroneously. 12
Excessive-force involuntary manslaughter instruction required? 13	Barker claimed self-defense with excessive force was supported by his testimony.	The State said Barker's account showed an accident, not intentional self-defense.	Yes, the court erred by omitting it, but the error was not clearly erroneous. 14
Prosecutor misstated premeditation in closing? 15	Barker argued the prosecutor misstated law and evidence on premeditation.	The State said the comments were fair inferences from the evidence.	No; the prosecutor stayed within permissible inference from the evidence. 16

Key Cases Cited

State v. Douglas, 313 Kan. 704 (Kan. 2021) (invited error requires the party to induce the challenged ruling 17)
State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262 (Kan. 2008) (invited error applies when the defense affirmatively rejects a lesser-included instruction 18)
State v. Barnes, 320 Kan. 147 (Kan. 2025) (mere failure to request an instruction is not invited error 19)
State v. Thille, 320 Kan. 435 (Kan. 2025) (jury instruction error and clear-error review framework 20)
State v. Lowe, 317 Kan. 713 (Kan. 2023) (factual appropriateness of lesser-included instructions 21)
State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614 (Kan. 2008) (premeditation evidence can be sufficient even if weak or circumstantial 22)
State v. Gentry, 310 Kan. 715 (Kan. 2019) (lesser-included instructions are required when some evidence supports them 23)
State v. James, 309 Kan. 1280 (Kan. 2019) (distinguishes reckless second-degree murder from involuntary manslaughter by mental state 24)
State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540 (Kan. 2021) (excessive-force involuntary manslaughter is an imperfect self-defense theory 25)
State v. Hardwick, 321 Kan. 519 (Kan. 2026) (a defendant's testimony alone can support a lesser-included instruction 26)
State v. Berkstresser, 316 Kan. 597 (Kan. 2022) (clear-error standard asks whether the jury would likely have reached a different verdict 27)
State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307 (Kan. 2018) (premeditation means thought beforehand, not a contemporaneous instant of intent 28)
State v. Dotson, 319 Kan. 32 (Kan. 2024) (premeditation requires no specific time period 29)
State v. Ford, 320 Kan. 507 (Kan. 2025) (prosecutors may not misstate law or argue unsupported facts 30)
State v. Shields, 315 Kan. 814 (Kan. 2022) (prosecutors may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence 31)