State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131

Alejandro E. Betancourt, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building for a shooting that killed Miguel Andrade.
The shootings were carried out by two other participants, Eli Betancourt and Laurel, during a concerted plan to attack a house on North Jackson Avenue.
Witnesses and neighbors described two Hispanic men firing at the door; Eli and Laurel were identified as shooters and Betancourt directed and facilitated the operation.
Alejandro allegedly motivated and aided the plan but did not personally fire a weapon; the State pursued theories of premeditated murder and felony murder via aiding and abetting.
Alejandro challenged jury instructions on aiding-and-abetting and premeditation, and argued lack of evidence for alternative-means theory and need for voluntary-intoxication instruction.
The trial court denied mistrial and gang-evidence motions; defense raised voir dire concerns but the court preserved the proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Aiding-and-abetting instructions adequacy	Betancourt contends instructions diluted or mis-stated intent.	Betancourt argues instructions permitted conviction without shared premeditated intent.	Instructions accurately stated law; no clear error.
Alternative means theory for first-degree murder	State contends aiding-and-abetting adds no separate element; state need not prove principal and aider separately.	Betancourt asserts dual elements require proving two distinct acts; insufficiency if not both proven.	Aiding and abetting is a criminal-responsibility mechanism, not separate elements; no reversible error; convictions proper.
Voluntary intoxication instruction	If evidence supports intoxication affecting intent, instruction required.	Evidence insufficient to show incapacity to form intent; no error to omit.	No clear error; no duty to give instruction given the record.
Voir dire juror prejudice and mistrial ruling	Spontaneous juror-gang reference required mistrial.	No reversible prejudice; trial court acted within discretion.	No abuse of discretion; mistrial not warranted; no reversible prejudice.

State v. Llamas, 298 Kan. 246 (2013) (defines aiding and abetting as willful participation)
State v. Schriner, 215 Kans. 86 (1974) (early aiding-and-abetting framework)
State v. Herron, 286 Kan. 959 (2008) (aiding-and-abetting liability; elements instruction)
State v. Overstreet, 288 Kan. 1 (2009) (two-part aiding-and-abetting instruction impermissible)
State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113 (2005) (foreseeability part of instruction criticized)
State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (alternative means are distinct elements when legislatively created)
Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (aiding and abetting does not require advancing every element)
State v. Robinson, 293 Kan. 1002 (2012) (aiding and abetting extends liability; not a separate crime)