State v. Craig, 462 P.3d 173

On Jan. 25, 2016, Joseph J. Craig, Gabrielle Williams, Robyn Brown, and a fourth person were drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana; Williams lured David Phillips to her apartment under the pretext of a drug transaction.
A plan to rob Phillips (seize his gun, money, marijuana, and kill him) was discussed; Williams obtained Phillips’ gun and later accompanied Craig into the bathroom; she indicated she was not "ready to go through with the plan."
Craig put the gun to Phillips’ head; the gun initially misfired; later Craig fired three shots that killed Phillips. Witnesses saw Craig shoot Phillips; Phillips’ jacket (with both men's DNA) was found at Craig’s residence.
Craig was charged with first‑degree murder (premeditated and felony‑murder theories), conspiracy, aggravated robbery, and related firearms offenses.
The jury convicted Craig of felony murder and second‑degree intentional murder, but acquitted him of premeditated murder. At sentencing the district court dismissed the second‑degree conviction and sentenced Craig on the felony‑murder conviction; Craig appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convictions for felony murder and second‑degree murder based on the same killing were legally inconsistent and required a new trial or barred sentencing on the felony‑murder conviction	The State: both convictions can stand insofar as the jury found elements of felony murder beyond reasonable doubt; court may enter judgment on the greater offense and decline to sentence on the lesser	Craig: Instruction No. 14 shows the jury had reasonable doubt as to both first‑degree theories, so its second‑degree verdict proves doubt about felony murder; verdicts are irreconcilable and require reconsideration/new trial	Court affirmed sentencing on felony murder, dismissed second‑degree conviction; instructions were legally correct and not inherently irreconcilable, so no due‑process violation or mandatory new trial
Whether the district court erred by failing to give a voluntary intoxication instruction	The State: no factual basis—evidence shows consumption but not impairment to negate specific intent	Craig: testimony that he drank and smoked and was observed "pretty drunk" or in an "extreme state of intoxication" warranted a voluntary‑intoxication instruction	Court held no instruction required: testimony showed consumption but not sufficient direct evidence of impairment to form requisite mens rea; Craig could plan and execute the killing

State v. Hernandez, 294 Kan. 200 (2012) (trial court must order jury to reconsider irreconcilable verdicts)
State v. Harris, 310 Kan. 1026 (2019) (upholding sentencing on the more severe offense when jury convicts of two offenses based on same act)
State v. Seba, 305 Kan. 185 (2016) (felonious intent supplies malice for felony murder; intent to kill not required)
State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131 (2014) (voluntary‑intoxication instruction requires evidence of impairment sufficient to negate specific intent)
State v. Becker, 311 Kan. 176 (2020) (need for direct evidence of impairment to require voluntary‑intoxication instruction in premeditated homicide trial)
State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307 (2018) (second‑degree intentional murder is a lesser included offense of first‑degree premeditated murder)