State v. Davis, 113537

Background

In March 2012 an 8‑year‑old girl (A.I.) was taken from a party, later found assaulted and asphyxiated in a dryer; Billy F. Davis, Jr. was arrested after fleeing and confessed in a videotaped interview.
Davis admitted breaking into three apartments, beating, choking, and sexually assaulting A.I., and placing her in the dryer; he denied intending to kill her.
Medical and forensic testimony showed multiple traumatic and sexual injuries and asphyxiation, though the exact mechanism of death (strangulation versus positional asphyxia) could not be pinpointed.
The State charged alternative counts: capital murder (based on rape or kidnapping), premeditated first‑degree murder, and rape; jury convicted on all counts but imposed life (not death).
Davis moved to suppress his confession (denied); he appealed, raising sufficiency of premeditation evidence, prosecutorial misconduct in closing, voluntariness of confession, refusal to add extra unanimity language to jury instructions, and multiplicity of rape conviction with capital murder.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of premeditation	State: circumstantial evidence (strangulation, prior break‑ins, concealment, flight, admissions) supports premeditation	Davis: evidence consistent with accidental/positional asphyxia; surprised tone in confession undermines intent	Affirmed — evidence sufficient for premeditation based on circumstantial factors (weapon/nature of killing, conduct before/after, declarations, lethal force on helpless victim)
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	State: prosecutor's remarks were part of argument and not outcome‑determinative	Davis: prosecutor misstated law (“you don’t spend the rest of your life unless you’ve killed”) and misstated evidence (claimed no evidence of drug use after midnight) and argued prejudicially on intent	Errors occurred (law and evidence misstatements) but were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strength of record; convictions stand
Motion to suppress confession (voluntariness)	State: interrogation was noncoercive; defendant coherent, given breaks/food, Miranda provided	Davis: intoxication, drug use, PTSD, sleep deprivation rendered confession involuntary	Denied — totality of circumstances supports voluntariness; officers observed no impairment and Davis recounted events coherently
Jury unanimity language	State: standard PIK instructions already told jurors each offense is distinct and verdict must be unanimous	Davis: requested explicit added unanimity language on alternative counts	No error — judge had given standard instructions stating separate offenses and requirement of unanimous verdict
Multiplicity of rape conviction with capital murder	Davis: rape conviction multiplicious where capital murder is predicated on that rape	State: argued issue not raised below but multiplicity controls	Reversed rape conviction — rape is an element of capital murder under K.S.A. 21‑5401(a)(4) so separate rape conviction is multiplicitous

Key Cases Cited

State v. Woods, 301 Kan. 852 (reiterating sufficiency standard in criminal cases)
State v. Hollister, 300 Kan. 458 (circumstantial evidence and factors relevant to premeditation)
State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017 (premeditation can form during a violent episode; multiplicity discussion)
State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441 (strangulation as strong evidence of premeditation)
State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 (framework for analyzing prosecutorial error: error + prejudice)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (Chapman harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt test applied to prosecutorial error)
State v. Gilliland, 294 Kan. 519 (factors for voluntariness of confession and prosecution's burden)
State v. Belt, 305 Kan. 381 (conviction for an underlying sexual offense is multiplicitous when used as the predicate for capital murder)