343 P.3d 75
Kan.2015Background
- Brammer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter while DUI under two alternative theories; the court rejected the alternative means theory and affirmed a single conviction.
- The crash occurred Oct. 4, 2009, when Brammer’s truck collided head-on with Taylor White’s vehicle; Brammer had a BAC of .11 three hours after the crash.
- State witnesses described high speeds and a dust cloud; no pre-impact marks suggested evasive action; trooper found alcohol contributing to the crash.
- Brammer argued the instruction allowed three means but the State proved only driving under the influence; he sought additional causation and sequencing instructions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding there was no preserved error on many challenges and Brammer had not shown clear error; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.
- The Court relied on Cheffen to hold that the DUI involuntary manslaughter statute describes factual circumstances rather than creating alternative means.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether involuntary manslaughter while DUI creates alternative means | Brammer argues three alternate means existed | State argues the language sets factual circumstances | Not alternative means; language describes facts proving the crime |
| Objection record requirements under 22-3414(3) | Brammer complied with pretrial requests but not on-record objections | Pretrial requests suffice for preservation | Clear error review; must object on record before verdict; pretrial requests alone insufficient |
| Causation instruction adequacy (second paragraph) | Second paragraph clarifies contributory negligence as a factor | Substantial evidence supported given the decedent’s conduct | No reversible error; failure to give second paragraph not clearly prejudicial |
| Sequencing of lesser included offenses and reasonable doubt language | Sequencing and missing 68.09 language prejudiced Brammer | Instructions as a whole adequately informed reasonable doubt standard | Not clear error; sequencing and omission not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cheffen, 297 Kan. 689 (Kan. 2013) (statutory phrasing describes facts, not alternative means)
- State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94 (Kan. 2013) (clear error review for instruction challenges when no objection)
- State v. Collins, 36 Kan. App. 2d 367 (Kan. App. 2006) (causation instruction guiding proximate cause analysis)
- State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 46 (Kan. 2011) (issues with sequencing of offenses; not identical here)
- State v. Hurt, 278 Kan. 676 (Kan. 2004) (reasonable doubt instruction governing lesser offenses)
- State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 (Kan. 2011) (reasonable doubt instruction not always required for lesser offenses)
- State v. Trujillo, 225 Kan. 320 (Kan. 1979) (precedent on reasonable doubt and lesser offenses)