485 P.3d 1175
Kan.2021Background
- Victim Taylor Sawyer was found shot twice near Perry Lake; autopsy showed two head wounds; evidence included a fired bullet, shell casings, and Sawyer's blood on the defendant's shoe.
- Jonathan Blevins was arrested; the murder weapon was his 9mm handgun; his phone, videos, written statement, and three recorded police interviews contained multiple, inconsistent admissions, including statements implicating himself and a co‑participant, Ashlyn Hemmerling.
- The State charged Blevins with premeditated first‑degree murder; the district court instructed the jury on principal liability and on aiding and abetting; jury convicted and the court imposed a presumptive "hard 50" sentence.
- During voir dire a prospective juror asked about the death penalty and the judge told the venire the case was not a capital case; defense did not contemporaneously object to that comment or to the aiding and abetting instruction.
- The prosecutor’s closing and sentencing remarks included several challenged statements (alleged misstatements of law and fact, personal opinions, and credibility commentary); the district court denied a downward departure from the presumptive sentence.
- Blevins appealed six issues to the Kansas Supreme Court; the court found some prosecutorial errors but held each and all were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Blevins' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial comment re: death penalty during voir dire | Judge correctly told venire death penalty not sought to remove bias; factual and permissible | Comment diluted State's burden and was prejudicial | No error: permissible to inform venire a case is not capital; harmless/no dilution of burden |
| Aiding and abetting instruction | Instruction accurate and supported by evidence allowing inference Blevins aided Ashlyn | Instruction factually inappropriate—insufficient evidence for accomplice theory | No clear error: sufficient evidence (albeit limited) supported giving the instruction |
| Prosecutor misstating law (closing) | Remarks argued reasonable inferences; primary theory was Blevins as shooter | Prosecutor misstated intent requirement for aiding and abetting | Error found but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given record and prefatory correct law statements |
| Prosecutor factual misstatements, personal opinion, credibility comments | Statements were fair argument or harmless; grounded in evidentiary premises | Statements improperly vouched, misstated facts, and expressed personal belief, prejudicing jury | Several statements erroneous (law, fact, opinion, bolstering) but each and cumulatively harmless given overwhelming evidence and jury instruction that arguments are not evidence |
| Prosecutor statements at sentencing | Comments repeated State's trial theory and reasonable inferences; permissible at sentencing | Sentencing remarks misstated facts and relied on unproven allegations | No prosecutorial error requiring relief; remarks supported by trial evidence or harmless |
| Refusal to depart from presumptive "hard 50" | No substantial and compelling mitigators shown to warrant departure | Youth, limited record, coercive role of Ashlyn, family support warranted downward departure | No abuse of discretion: court reasonably concluded proffered mitigating factors were not substantial and compelling |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boothby, 310 Kan. 619 (judicial comment error reviewable on appeal despite no contemporaneous objection)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmlessness standard for constitutional error)
- Fero v. Kerby, 39 F.3d 1462 (10th Cir.) (permissible for judge to tell venire the death penalty is not sought)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (applies Chapman harmlessness to prosecutorial/judicial error)
- State v. King, 308 Kan. 16 (prosecutor may not express personal belief or vouch for truth of evidence)
- State v. Timley, 311 Kan. 944 (prosecutor must anchor inferential arguments to evidentiary premises)
- State v. Wilson, 309 Kan. 67 (review of prosecutorial error in sentencing contexts)
- State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307 (existence of a mitigating factor does not automatically make it "substantial and compelling")