State v. Barrett, 442 P.3d 492

In February 2008 Howard Barrett, who suffered from schizophrenia, fatally stabbed an exterminator who entered Barrett’s apartment; Barrett admitted harming the man and called 911 claiming self-defense.
Barrett made brief post-arrest statements after Miranda warnings to an officer in a patrol car and later to a detective at the station; he was later found incompetent and the trial was delayed over six years while he was civilly committed twice.
At trial (2014) the parties agreed Barrett killed the victim and that he suffered from untreated schizophrenia; experts disagreed whether his psychosis negated intent or merely affected it.
The district court instructed the jury on intentional second-degree murder, reckless second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and the mental-disease-or-defect defense, but refused defense-requested imperfect self-defense (voluntary) manslaughter instruction; jury convicted of reckless second-degree murder.
Barrett appealed arguing (1) failure to give imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter instruction; (2) denial of motion to suppress post-Miranda statements as involuntary due to mental illness; and (3) denial of motion to dismiss for speedy-trial violation due to State’s failure to force-medicate.
Kansas Supreme Court: affirmed denial of suppression and speedy-trial claims; reversed and remanded for new trial because omission of imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter instruction was not harmless.

Issue	Barrett's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Failure to give imperfect self-defense (voluntary) manslaughter instruction	Evidence supported an unreasonable but honest belief in need to use deadly force; instruction should have been given	Skip rule makes error harmless because conviction for reckless murder precludes intentional lesser offense	Reversed: omission was not harmless; reasonable probability jury outcome affected; remand for new trial
Suppression of post-Miranda statements (involuntariness due to mental illness)	Barrett’s psychosis rendered his post-Miranda statements involuntary	No coercive police activity; Connelly controls—mental illness alone does not make statement involuntary	Affirmed: statements voluntary as a matter of law absent coercive police conduct
Speedy trial / failure to force-medicate to preserve competency	State should have force-medicated or done more to maintain competency after Barrett refused meds, so delay after 2010 violated speedy-trial rights	Delay attributable to defendant’s incompetency; Sell does not mandate forcible medication; State not required to force-medicate here	Affirmed: delays due to incompetency do not violate Sixth Amendment; no duty shown to force-medicate under Sell

State v. Horn, 278 Kan. 24 (discussing the origins of the "skip rule")
State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (clarifying the skip rule as a limited logical deduction)
State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585 (cautioning against mechanical application of the skip rule)
State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234 (overruled on other grounds; cited re: Horn)
State v. Preston, 294 Kan. 27 (statutory harmless-error standard)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (statutory and constitutional harmlessness tests)
Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1959) (confession involuntary where defendant plainly insane and interrogation coercive)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (mental illness alone insufficient; coercive police activity required to render confession involuntary)
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (narrow circumstances permitting involuntary medication to restore competency)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)