State v. Barlow
303 Kan. 804
Kan.2016Background
- Police responded to a disturbance and found Mical Barlow waving a gun outside an apartment; he was arrested and charged with attempted second-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault.
- At trial the jury heard conflicting testimony about whether Barlow used force to stop J.M.-M. from sexually assaulting an unconscious woman; the jury convicted Barlow of attempted second-degree murder and one aggravated assault, acquitting on the other assault count.
- After the guilty verdict but before sentencing, the district judge sua sponte concluded by a preponderance that Barlow was entitled to Stand‑Your‑Ground immunity as to the attempted murder charge, vacated that conviction, and dismissed the count.
- The State appealed; the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, reinstated the attempted murder conviction, and remanded.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether the district court’s order was a nonappealable judgment of acquittal and (2) whether a judge may sua sponte grant Stand‑Your‑Ground immunity after a jury verdict but before sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Barlow) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s post‑verdict dismissal is a judgment of acquittal and thus unappealable | The order was a dismissal/arrest of judgment subject to appellate review and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction | The order resolved factual elements after jeopardy attached and therefore is an acquittal protected by double jeopardy | The order was a judgment of acquittal (jeopardy had attached and the judge resolved factual elements), so the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the conviction |
| Whether a district judge may sua sponte grant Stand‑Your‑Ground immunity after a guilty jury verdict but before sentencing | A judge cannot override a jury verdict post‑trial; immunity must be raised earlier (relying on Jones) | The judge may grant immunity and vacate conviction; that acquittal is final | Yes: a district judge may consider and grant Stand‑Your‑Ground immunity sua sponte at any time before sentence is pronounced (though procedural standards must be observed) |
| Proper standard/burden for resolving Stand‑Your‑Ground immunity | (Argued through appellate posture) courts need guidance; State emphasized statutory limits | Barlow relied on district judge’s factual findings supporting immunity | Court clarified Ultreras governs: probable cause is the correct standard and the State bears the burden to show lack of justification; trial‑court procedural errors do not permit appellate reinstatement of conviction |
| Whether appellate courts may provide broader guidance on SYG procedures | State sought statewide procedural guidance via reserved question | Barlow opposed reopening acquittal; argued immunity resolution foreclosed appeal | Court answered narrow reserved question (judge may act sua sponte pre‑sentence) but declined to rewrite statutory procedure—legislature should provide broader procedural guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 298 Kan. 324 (court barred defendant from invoking Stand‑Your‑Ground immunity for first time on appeal)
- State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828 (Stand‑Your‑Ground immunity hearing governed by probable‑cause standard; State bears burden to show lack of justification)
- State v. Roberts, 293 Kan. 29 (describes when an order is a judgment of acquittal: must resolve factual element after jeopardy attaches)
- State v. Berreth, 294 Kan. 98 (procedural rule: State must elect statutory basis for appeal and that election governs available remedies)