State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048

Cruz was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm for the 2008 Lightning Joe’s incident; 2007 Babydolls case was tried in a consolidated proceeding.
The district court consolidated the two cases over Cruz’s written and oral objections; evidence from both crimes was presented to a single jury.
Key evidence included the same firearm used in both shootings, DNA partial profile on the gun, and testimony from Hubbard linking Cruz to both crimes.
Childers identified Cruz in a show-up identification linked to the 2008 murder; the vehicle stop and show-up occurred within minutes of the crime.
The Babydolls murder involved a different victim and separate charges, but the same gun connected to both incidents.
Cruz appeals on consolidation, eyewitness identification, identification procedure, gang evidence, and cumulative error, seeking reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was consolidation proper under joinder rules?	Cruz argues consolidation was improper.	State contends crimes were same or similar in character and properly joined.	Consolidation affirmed; crimes were same or similar in character.
Was the eyewitness identification procedure unnecessarily suggestive?	Cruz contends show-up was unnecessarily suggestive and prejudicial.	State argues procedure was fair and properly admitted with corroborating evidence.	Procedure was unnecessarily suggestive but not reversal-worthy due to reliability.
Did the eyewitness identification jury instruction correctly handle certainty?	Cruz claims inclusion of the certainty factor in the instruction was error.	State defends the instruction as proper given the record, or argues error was not clearly erroneous.	Instruction erred by including the certainty factor, but error not clearly erroneous to warrant reversal.
Was gang evidence admissible and properly weighed?	Cruz asserts gang evidence was prejudicial and not relevant to the crimes.	State argues gang testimony affected credibility and context, not impermissible prejudice.	Gang evidence admissible to bolster credibility; no reversible error.
Do cumulative trial errors require reversal?	Cruz contends multiple errors cumulatively denied a fair trial.	State maintains errors were not reversible when considering the whole record.	Cumulative error not sufficient to overturn; evidence against Cruz was overwhelming.

State v. Gaither, 283 Kan. 671 (Kan. 2007) (joinder review standards and abuse of discretion for consolidation)
State v. Barksdale, 266 Kan. 498 (Kan. 1999) (joinder of murders; comparable modus operandi and punishment)
State v. Cromwell, 253 Kan. 495 (Kan. 1993) (time span between murders supporting joinder)
State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392 (Kan. 2006) (time span in multiple incidents and severance considerations)
State v. Mitchell, 294 Kan. 469 (Kan. 2012) (eyewitness identification standard; first-step rule; cautionary instruction)
State v. Reed, 45 Kan. App. 2d 372 (Kan. App. 2011) (issues around unnecessarily suggestive identifications; totality of circumstances)
State v. Alires, 246 Kan. 635 (Kan. 1990) (exigent circumstances and show-up identifications; multiple terms for suggestiveness)
State v. Goodson, 281 Kan. 913 (Kan. 2006) (bias and gang evidence admissibility; witness credibility context)
State v. Perry, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (Supreme Court on suggestiveness terminology (dissent cited))