State v. Dobbs, 297 Kan. 1225

Dobbs was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and criminal possession of a firearm for a 2008 barbershop shooting in Kansas City, Kansas.
Mitchell identified Dobbs as the gunman about two weeks after the incident; Ellis was identified as the getaway driver.
At trial, Mitchell testified with certainty about identifying Dobbs; defense highlighted inconsistencies and prior juvenile adjudications affecting credibility.
The State presented testimony from other witnesses linking a gray Monte Carlo to Dobbs’ brother and corroborating details of the shooting scene.
During trial, the court gave an eyewitness identification instruction including a degree-of-certainty factor; Dobbs argued this was improper and reversible error.
The district court granted a continuance under K.S.A. 22-3402(5)(c) to obtain forensic results from a KBI backlog; trial proceeded 160 days after arraignment and Dobbs was convicted on all counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the continuance was an abuse of discretion	Dobbs argues the State failed to prove materiality of evidence and that the delay violated the speedy-trial right.	Dobbs contends the evidence was not material and the backlog did not justify the delay.	No abuse; continuance proper and speedy-trial right not violated.
Whether the eyewitness ID instruction was clearly erroneous	Dobbs asserts the degree-of-certainty factor is disapproved and should have been omitted.	Dobbs contends the instruction misled jurors about certainty in identification.	Instruction error occurred, but other safeguards nullified reversible prejudice; no reversal required.

State v. Beaman, 295 Kan. 853 (2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuances)
State v. Cook, 281 Kan. 961 (2006) (continuance analysis and speedy-trial considerations)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (standards for 22-3402 continuances)
State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 (2012) (abuse-of-discretion review framework)
State v. Smith, 248 Kan. 217 (1991) (materiality and testing in continuance context)
State v. Brown, 266 Kan. 563 (1999) (continuance to test DNA evidence when potentially material)
State v. Jackson, 280 Kan. 16 (2005) (DNA evidence's materiality in continuance analysis)
State v. Mitchell, 294 Kan. 469 (2012) (limits on eyewitness certainty instruction when witness is familiar)
Marshall, 294 Kan. 850 (2012) (cautionary eyewitness instructions; evaluation of error impact)
State v. Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (standards for evaluating eyewitness certainty and reliability)