State v. Carter, 466 P.3d 1180

Background

Brent J. Carter, a Gangster Disciples member, was charged with (inter alia) two counts of first‑degree felony murder and two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm arising from a December 1, 2015 shooting that killed two people, plus separate counts of aggravated battery and criminal threat from an earlier November 23, 2015 incident with his then‑girlfriend, Tatyana Crowe.
The State moved to consolidate the November battery/threat charges with the December homicide/shooting charges; the district court granted consolidation, finding the battery precipitated the shooting as part of a connected series of events related to gang rivalry and Crowe’s change of relationships.
At trial multiple witnesses testified they saw Carter in a car at the shooting holding and firing a long gun; other witnesses gave inconsistent testimony and one recanted portions of an earlier statement.
Carter requested a jury instruction clarifying that mere presence or association alone is insufficient for aiding and abetting; the court denied additional "mere presence" language and gave the standard PIK 4th aiding and abetting instruction.
During deliberations the jury asked whether the discharge attributable to Carter must be his own firearm or could be any firearm at the scene; the jury convicted Carter on all counts (including domestic violence findings) and the district court imposed consecutive life terms and additional months.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Carter's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by refusing Carter’s requested aiding‑and‑abetting instruction that explicitly precludes conviction based on mere presence	The standard aiding/abetting PIK instruction is legally sufficient and the requested mere‑presence language was not factually warranted because witnesses placed Carter at the scene with a gun	The court should have included the mere‑presence language (or the requested formulation) because there was evidence he was merely present or passive; jury questions show potential confusion	Court affirmed: the requested language is legally correct but not required; even if factually appropriate, omission was harmless given strong evidence of Carter’s active participation and multiple witnesses placing him firing a gun.
Whether the district court abused discretion or erred as a matter of law by consolidating the November battery/threat charges with the December shooting charges	Consolidation proper under K.S.A. 22‑3202(1)(3): the battery precipitated a sequence of events (motive, breakup, association with rivals) that connected the offenses as part of a common series or scheme	Consolidation was improper because the battery did not directly motivate or cause the shooting and the connections were speculative	Court affirmed: substantial competent evidence supported that the battery precipitated the shooting; the court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the cases.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Llamas, 298 Kan. 246, 311 P.3d 399 (2013) (standard aiding/abetting instruction generally sufficient; mere presence is not enough to convict)
State v. Murrin, 309 Kan. 385, 435 P.3d 1126 (2019) (four‑step test for reviewing jury instruction challenges)
State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 322 P.3d 367 (2014) (better practice to include mere‑presence language in aiding/abetting instruction)
State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (discussion of aiding/abetting and mere‑presence principle)
State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) (harmless‑error standard for instructional error—no reasonable probability of a different outcome)
State v. Donaldson, 279 Kan. 694, 112 P.3d 99 (2005) (three situations where crimes are "connected together" for joinder purposes)
State v. Pondexter, 234 Kan. 208, 671 P.2d 539 (1983) (earlier offenses precipitating later crimes can justify joinder)
State v. Walker, 244 Kan. 275, 768 P.2d 290 (1989) (earlier offenses precipitated factual setting for later threats; consolidation upheld)
State v. Smith‑Parker, 301 Kan. 132, 340 P.3d 485 (2014) (standard of review for joinder under K.S.A. 22‑3202)
State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555, 316 P.3d 696 (2013) (district court's joinder decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (standard for harmless‑error analysis on jury instruction issues)
State v. Dreiling, 274 Kan. 518, 54 P.3d 475 (2002) (joining charges where perjury would conceal motive for murder justified consolidation)