State v. Cook, 249 P.3d 454

Cook was convicted of felony possession of marijuana after a midnight incident where a bag of marijuana was found on a suspect chased by police officers, who identified Cook as the suspect in question.
Cook testified he did not own the jacket or the marijuana and alleged the officers had fabricated the charge; he claimed coercive tactics and that a prior marijuana conviction was used improperly.
During trial, the State admitted evidence of Cook's prior marijuana conviction under K.S.A. 60-455 and the court failed to articulate a clear basis under 60-455 for its admissibility.
There was additional testimony regarding a prior search warrant and a related officer who had prior contact with Cook, which the court sustained objections to but allowed some testimony to remain.
The trial court permitted the jury to hear Cook’s prior conviction, imposed a 20-month sentence to run consecutive to his prior term, and Cook appealed on multiple grounds including evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective handling of counsel issues.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the admissibility of the prior conviction under 60-455 was improper, that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and that cumulative errors denied Cook a fair trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior marijuana conviction under 60-455	Cook argues the prior conviction was immaterial and prejudicial	State contends it showed bias and credibility	Reversed for new trial on admissibility error
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument	Cook asserts closing improperly highlighted prior conviction to influence the verdict	State maintains argument falls within permissible scope	Reversed for new trial due to improper arguments
Cumulative error beyond individual errors	Cumulative effect denied fair trial	Not addressed separately from errors	Reversed for new trial on cumulative error grounds
Request for substitute counsel and trial court handling	Cook claims failure to fully investigate new counsel request	Court properly exercised discretion to deny substitution	No abuse of discretion; no reversible error
Sentencing based on prior convictions (Apprendi/Ivory issue)	Cook argues need to prove prior convictions to a jury	Ivory precedent controls; argument fails	Argument fails under Ivory; not controlling due to precedent

State v. Boggs, 287 Kan. 298 (2008) (admission of prior crimes must meet 60-455 standards; prejudicial risk emphasized)
State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 (2006) (non-kS.A. 60-455 error; harmless error standards; applicable)
State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 (2008) (relevance and materiality analysis for 60-455 evidence)
State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 (2009) (probative value vs. prejudice; de novo materiality review)
State v. Macomber, 241 Kan. 154 (1987) (credibility impeachment and due process constraints)
State v. Vann, 280 Kan. 782 (2006) (Sixth Amendment/counsel conflict; standard for substitute counsel)
State v. Merrills, 37 Kan. App. 2d 81 (2007) (appellate treatment of sentencing and evidentiary issues)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (2002) (Apprendi/ Blakely line on sentencing factors; longstanding Kansas stance)