State v. Coones, 301 Kan. 64

Coones was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder of Kathleen Schroll; key evidence was Kathleen’s 2:21 am call alleging Coones was in the house to kill them.
He was tried twice; the first verdict acquitted Carl’s murder and convicted Kathleen’s, leading to a new trial on grounds of State’s late disclosure of computer evidence.
Kathleen’s mother testified about the 2:21 am call and the caller ID showed Kathleen’s home number; discrepancies later discussed.
Coones received a hard 50 sentence under K.S.A. 21-4635, which the court later found unconstitutional and remanded for resentencing after vacating the hard 50.
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the hard 50 sentence, remanding for resentencing due to Alleyne-era constitutional concerns; issues include ineffective assistance, evidentiary decisions, and prosecutorial conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel standard	Kalb deficient for multiple decisions	Kalb’s actions were reasonable under Strickland	Kalb not deficient; prejudice analysis moot
Admission of Kathleen’s statements to her mother	Unconfronted testimonial statements; inadmissible	Statements were non-testimonial; admissible	Not testimonial; admission permissible under Confrontation Clause
Caller ID evidence and reliability	Counsel failed to object and to present spoofing expert	Foundation showed reliability; spoofing not essential	Counsel not deficient; evidence properly admitted
Testimony about Kathleen’s convenience-store confrontation (double hearsay)	Evidence was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial	Evidence admissible as showing plan/motive; not unduly prejudicial	Evidence admissible; probative value outweighed prejudice
Constitutionality of the hard 50 sentence	Statute violates jury-trial requirement under Alleyne	Not raised below; but rule requires jury finding for aggravating factors	Hard 50 unconstitutional; vacated and case remanded for resentencing

State v. Bennington, 293 Kan. 503 (2011) (testimonial vs. non-testimonial; Confrontation Clause analysis guidance)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements subject to confrontation; exceptions apply for nontestimonial)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (contextual framework for confrontation and hearsay applicability)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Schuette, 273 Kan. 593 (2009) (foundation requirements for caller ID evidence (reliability))