State v. Breedlove, 286 P.3d 1123

Breedlove, age 17 in 1995, committed the August 12 murder that later led to convictions later vacated for lack of jurisdiction.
September 3, 1995 crimes arising from a carjacking led to juvenile court proceedings; Breedlove pled guilty as an adult for those offenses.
At age 19, Breedlove was charged in district court for August 12 offenses (felony murder, aggravated robbery, four aggravated assaults) and convicted in 1997, with life plus consecutive sentences;
Kansas appellate court later vacated those convictions for lack of jurisdiction, and the 2008 mandate vacated the judgment.
In 2008 the State initiated new juvenile proceedings (08JV0623) recharging the six counts; in 2009 the juvenile court authorized adult prosecution and then the district court arraigned Breedlove on first-degree murder.
A second trial in 2009 included testimony related to events of August 12 and September 3, 1995; Breedlove presented no defense witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy trial under 22-3402	Breedlove alleges 90-day deadline after mandate was violated.	Because the first trial was void, 90-day clock starts at new arraignment; juvenile origin means no old case.	No reversible error; clock started at arraignment; 124 days passed before trial.
Admissibility of evidence of other crimes	State properly admitted evidence of prior criminal acts.	Bad acts evidence was improperly admitted without timely objection.	Issue foreclosed due to lack of timely objection; not reviewed on appeal.
Confrontation and use of prior trial testimony	Reading testimony from the void first trial is permissible with unavailability and cross-examination history.	Voided trial nullifies prior testimony and confrontational rights.	Reading of prior testimony satisfied Confrontation Clause; witnesses unavailable did not violate rights.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments	Prosecutor fairly argued the evidence and drew reasonable inferences.	Remarks misrepresented the evidence and overstated certain actions.	Not reversible; statements within permissible latitude given evidence and later curative rulings.
Order in limine violations and opening statement	Opening statement and witness questioning violated the limine order.	No prejudice and the court corrected course; objections were not specific.	No reversible error; any prejudice was not shown; cumulative error none.

State v. Vaughn, 288 Kan. 140 (2009) (speedy-trial time limits and State burden)
State v. Montes-Mata, 292 Kan. 367 (2011) (de novo review; timing of speedy-trial calculation)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause and unavailability for cross-examination)
State v. McCray, 267 Kan. 339 (1999) (Confrontation right satisfied when defendant had cross-examination opportunity)
State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824 (2011) (Allen-type instruction and clearly erroneous standard)