State v. Brown
299 Kan. 1021
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Kevin L. Brown and his cousin Quartez entered Otis Bolden's apartment with guns after Brown learned Bolden allegedly assaulted friends of Brown's girlfriend; Bolden was shot and later died. Brown was tried separately and convicted of felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault.
- The amended information charged felony murder listing three alternative underlying felonies (aggravated burglary, aggravated battery, and/or aggravated assault) and charged aggravated burglary listing alternative underlying felonies (aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and/or first-degree murder).
- At trial the jury was instructed only that the felony-murder underlying felony was aggravated burglary and that the aggravated burglary underlying felony was aggravated assault of Bolden; Brown did not object to the instructions.
- Brown appealed, arguing (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction because the preliminary hearing did not bind him over for aggravated assault of Bolden, (2) aiding and abetting was improperly treated as an alternative means or a separate crime, (3) felony-murder instructions were deficient regarding temporal relation to the underlying felony, and (4) narrowing the jury instructions without amending the information was reversible error.
- The State moved to dismiss for a premature notice of appeal, but the Supreme Court held the notice became effective when the final journal entry (including restitution) was filed and proceeded to the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to convict (sufficiency of information & preliminary hearing) | The information was defective because preliminary hearing did not bind Brown over for aggravated assault of Bolden; therefore court lacked jurisdiction. | Information, drawn in statutory language, adequately alleged elements and invested jurisdiction; preliminary-hearing defects were waived and non-jurisdictional. | Affirmed. Information sufficient; preliminary-hearing challenges waived absent timely district-court motion; probable cause existed. |
| Alternative means / Aiding-and-abetting as an alternative means | Aiding and abetting statutory language creates alternative means, requiring separate proof. | Aiding-and-abetting does not add material elements and is not an alternative means; jury was instructed on a single aiding theory. | Affirmed. Betancourt controls: aiding-and-abetting is not an alternative means. |
| Aiding-and-abetting as a separate crime | Aiding-and-abetting requires specific intent and thus is a distinct offense that must be charged separately. | Precedent treats aiding-and-abetting as a theory of culpability (assignment of responsibility), not a separate crime. | Affirmed. Aiding-and-abetting is not a separate crime and need not be charged separately. |
| Jury instructions narrowing underlying means / felony-murder temporal instruction | Narrowing instructions to one underlying means without amending information and omitting "remain within" language prejudiced Brown; felony-murder instruction failed to address whether underlying felony was abandoned/completed. | Trial court may limit instructions to theories supported by trial evidence; pattern felony-murder instruction adequately addresses temporal relation. | Affirmed. Narrowing to supported means is appropriate; felony-murder pattern instruction was not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131 (Kan. 2014) (aiding-and-abetting does not add material elements and is not an alternative means)
- State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978 (Kan. 2014) (premature notice of appeal lies dormant until final judgment; then becomes effective)
- State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449 (Kan. 2011) (pattern felony-murder instruction properly instructs jury on temporal relation between killing and underlying felony)
- State v. Belcher, 269 Kan. 2 (Kan. 2000) (charging document must specifically state crime or its lesser-included status; otherwise court lacks jurisdiction)
- State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (Kan. 2010) (requirements for sufficiency of evidence to support each alternative means in jury instructions)
- State v. Jones, 290 Kan. 373 (Kan. 2010) (preliminary hearing purpose and probable cause standard)