425 P.3d 630
Kan. Ct. App.2018Background
- In April 2016 Collins (male, ~5'11", 250 lbs.) and three unarmed women (the Brown twins and their mother) had two confrontations at their apartment complex; the second ended with Kayla Brown fatally stabbed and Shayla Brown seriously injured. Collins carried a folding pocketknife (4" blade).
- Collins was charged with intentional second-degree murder and reckless aggravated battery and moved for immunity under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5231 (the "stand your ground" immunity statute).
- After a three-day evidentiary hearing the district court found conflicting testimony but concluded Collins reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm (principally from being pulled and falling down stairs) and granted immunity, dismissing the charges.
- The State appealed, arguing Collins did not have a reasonable belief deadly force was necessary and that Collins acted as an aggressor so the statutory exceptions to immunity applied.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and the legal conclusion de novo, and reversed the grant of immunity, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Collins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State meet its burden to show probable cause that Collins' use of deadly force was not justified under K.S.A. 21-5231? | State: Evidence supports a reasonable view that deadly force was not objectively necessary; immunity should be denied. | Collins: He honestly and reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm when attacked/pulled down the stairs. | Held: Reversed — State met its probable cause burden; immunity improper. |
| Was Collins’ belief that deadly force was necessary objectively reasonable? | State: No; three unarmed women, no threats of death, prior injuries were minor, and no evidence fall would cause great bodily harm. | Collins: Close proximity, being pulled from behind, and prior altercation made fear of great bodily harm reasonable. | Held: No — objective prong not satisfied; reasonable person could conclude force was not justified. |
| Did evidence support that Collins was at risk of great bodily harm from falling the stairs? | State: No expert or medical evidence showed fall would cause great bodily harm; injuries from prior incident were minor. | Collins: Falling from stairs and renewed assault could produce serious injury, justifying defensive deadly force. | Held: No — record lacks support that fall or renewed assault would result in great bodily harm. |
| Was Collins an initial aggressor barring immunity under K.S.A. 21-5226(c)? | State: District court found possible provocative conduct (looking for a fight); evidence could support aggressor finding. | Collins: Denies provoking or initiating use of force; acted in self-defense after being pulled. | Held: Court did not need to decide definitively but noted facts could support State’s claim Collins was aggressor; this strengthens denial of immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 (2012) (two-prong subjective/objective test for lawful use of deadly force)
- State v. Walters, 284 Kan. 1 (2007) (reasonableness of belief is central to objective prong)
- State v. Hardy, 305 Kan. 1001 (2017) (district court must weigh evidence without deference to State when ruling on immunity)
- State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828 (2013) (definition of probable cause standard in immunity context)
- State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 (2012) (definition of "great bodily harm")
- State v. Collins, 257 Kan. 408 (1995) (use of excessive force can make otherwise lawful self-defense unlawful)