418 P.3d 1253
Kan.2018Background
- Daniel Barlett and others chased/confronted former associate Chad Ford after a courthouse encounter; tensions escalated between multiple vehicles with insults and aggressive driving.
- Ross Farber carried guns; Michael McKeehan (Barlett’s companion) brought a 9 mm; Ford displayed/used a revolver and was fatally shot during the confrontation.
- Barlett and McKeehan left, later surrendered; McKeehan pled guilty to related charges and testified against Barlett.
- Barlett was tried for criminal discharge of a firearm into an occupied vehicle (aiding and abetting) and initially faced a felony-murder charge later reduced to voluntary manslaughter by plea; sentences ran consecutively.
- At trial the court denied Barlett’s requested self-defense and mere-association instructions and declined to replay a damaged portion of a recorded interrogation (providing a transcript instead); Barlett appealed multiple instructional and procedural rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defense instruction availability | State: self-defense barred when defendant is charged with a forcible felony | Barlett: entitled to self-defense instruction because statutory/textual reading should allow defense unless already committing a separate forcible felony | Court: adopted narrower rule—self-defense barred only if defendant was already committing a forcible felony when committing the separate act; but instruction denied here because mutual combat precluded self-defense |
| Mere-association (aiding & abetting) instruction | State: standard aiding-and-abetting PIK instruction adequate | Barlett: jury should be instructed that mere presence/association is insufficient to convict as aider/abettor | Court: better practice to include mere-presence language but facts showed active participation by Barlett, so omission not reversible error |
| Omission of statutory definition of "intentional" | State: common meaning sufficed; no reversible error | Barlett: clear error for failing to give statutory intent definition | Court: agreed with Court of Appeals—no reversible error; definition largely mirrors common understanding and PIK instruction adequately covered mens rea |
| Jury access to malfunctioning recording | State: transcript and partial playback cured any problem and court acted within discretion | Barlett: equipment failure prevented full playback and violated statutory duty, producing fundamental failure | Court: no abuse of discretion; transcript and partial playback cured prejudice; no mistrial required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bell, 276 Kan. 785 (2003) (held defendants charged with forcible felonies were excluded from self-defense instruction under statutory language)
- State v. Kirkpatrick, 286 Kan. 329 (2008) (reaffirmed Bell regarding forcible-felony bar to self-defense; contained majoritarian and dissenting views)
- State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (articulated four-step progressive analysis for instructional-review issues)
- State v. Friday, 297 Kan. 1023 (2013) (mutual combat doctrine bars self-defense instruction)
- State v. Llamas, 298 Kan. 246 (2013) (recommended including mere-presence language in aiding/abetting instructions when appropriate)
- State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176 (2014) (reinforced Llamas as better practice though omission may not be reversible error)
- State v. Carter, 305 Kan. 139 (2016) (upheld omission where defendant’s active participation made mere-presence language factually inappropriate)
- State v. Alderson, 260 Kan. 445 (1996) (permitted self-defense instruction where defendant fired at an oncoming car threatening a person)