State v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007

Background

Cheever was convicted of capital murder and multiple related offenses, sentenced to death for capital murder and long terms for other counts.
The State introduced the court-ordered mental examination of Cheever by Dr. Michael Weiner during federal proceedings.
Cheever had offered a voluntary intoxication defense; Dr. Evans testified about methamphetamine effects and potential impairment.
Weiner testified in rebuttal during the guilt phase, asserting Cheever had intact decision-making and intent contrary to the voluntary intoxication defense.
Cheever challenged the use of Weiner’s testimony as a Fifth Amendment privilege violation; the court held it reversible error and remanded for new trial.
The court also addressed related issues including felony murder as a lesser included offense, Cheever’s age under Apprendi/Ring, and various penalty-phase instructional issues, though some will be revisited on remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fifth Amendment waiver and admissibility of Weiner	Cheever preserves the claim; use of Weiner violates Fifth Amendment.	State may rebut voluntary intoxication with court-ordered examination.	Weiner's testimony violated Cheever's Fifth Amendment privilege; reversal remand required.
Harmless error standard for constitutional error	Weiner’s testimony contributed to verdict; not harmless beyond reasonable doubt.	Error could be harmless under Chapman framework.	Error is not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; convictions reversed and remanded.
Felony murder as a lesser included offense of capital murder	First-degree murder (including felony murder) should be a lesser included offense of capital murder.	Not applicable or necessary to include felony murder as lesser included offense.	Felony murder is a lesser included offense of capital murder; instruction should be considered on remand.
Cheever's age (18+) and Apprendi/Ring	Age at offense is a fact that must be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt to impose death.	Age is not a fact increasing the maximum; death eligibility permits non-jury finding.	Age is a fact necessary to death penalty; must be considered on remand; jury finding likely required.
Penalty-phase mitigating instructions and mercy	Penalty instructions and prosecutor arguments complied with law; issues preserved for remand.	Some comments improperly limited mitigating consideration or urged misinterpretation of mercy.	Some penalty-phase rulings/remarks require review; guidance provided for remand; mercy instruction not mandated to change result.

Key Cases Cited

Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (pretrial court-ordered exams implicate Fifth Amendment; use against defendant depends on context)
Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1987) (limits use of court-ordered examinations when mental-defense not raised)
Battie v. Estelle, 655 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1981) (waiver of privilege; initiation of examination not automatic waiver)
Gibbs v. Frank, 387 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2004) (synthesizes Smith/Buchanan lines for court-ordered exams and privilege issues)
Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1988) (Harmless-error standard for improper admission of psychiatric testimony using Chapman framework)
Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (distinct circumstances where Fifth Amendment applies to court-ordered exam)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (facts necessary for death penalty must be found by jury)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (age 18+ as a death-eligibility rule)
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1985) (prohibits juror misperception of appellate review authority in death cases)
Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894 (Kan. 2001) (mitigation instructions; framework for weighing mitigating evidence)
Nguyen, 251 Kan. 69 (Kan. 1992) (prohibition on appellate-review errors regarding trial procedures)
Foster, 259 Kan. 198 (Kan. 1996) (psychologist-client privilege and insanity defense interplay)
Scott, State v. Scott, 280 Kan. 54 (Kan. 2008) (guidance on appellate-issue handling in remand contexts)