State v. Fisher
373 P.3d 781
Kan.2016Background
- Defendant Matthew T. Fisher lived with Tim and Angel Worthen; following heavy drinking he engaged in a violent altercation that left Angel with life‑threatening injuries and damaged an interior door. Fisher admitted hitting Angel and threatening to kill her if she did not reveal Tim’s whereabouts.
- Police found Fisher bloody and disoriented; he made multiple statements at the hospital (post‑Miranda) and also later testified at trial claiming self‑defense.
- Fisher was charged with attempted second‑degree murder (alternative aggravated battery) and criminal damage to property (the broken interior door).
- At trial the court gave a preliminary warning to jurors that juror misconduct could cause a costly mistrial; the jury convicted Fisher on both counts and he was sentenced to 247 months.
- On appeal Fisher raised seven claims including Doyle (post‑Miranda silence) error, prosecutorial misconduct in closing, failure to instruct on attempted voluntary manslaughter (imperfect self‑defense), prejudicial preliminary instruction, insufficiency of the criminal‑damage evidence, cumulative error, and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fisher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Doyle v. Ohio violation (impeachment by post‑Miranda silence) | Questions were proper impeachment or harmless given other impeachment evidence | Prosecutor impermissibly suggested Fisher had a duty to volunteer his exculpatory story; violated Doyle | Court: Questioning constituted Doyle error but was harmless in context; conviction not reversed |
| 2) Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (expressing opinion; calling testimony “bull”; inflammatory language) | Remarks were proper inferences and permissible rhetoric; focused on evidence | Prosecutor expressed personal opinion, called testimony a lie, and used inflammatory phrasing that could prejudice jury | Court: Most argument permissible; single expletive equating to calling Fisher a liar was misconduct but not reversible—harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| 3) Omission of lesser included instruction: attempted voluntary manslaughter (imperfect self‑defense) | No instruction requested at trial; State relied on full charges | Fisher argued there was some evidence of honest but unreasonable belief in necessity of force—entitling him to instruction | Court: Instruction was legally and factually appropriate; omission was error but not clearly erroneous under preservation standard—no reversal |
| 4) Preliminary juror instruction about mistrial expense/inconvenience | Statement was a lawful warning about juror misconduct | Fisher argued it could coerce jurors or improperly inject external considerations | Court: Follows Tahah—preliminary warning not an Allen coercive charge; not reversible error |
| 5) Sufficiency of evidence for criminal damage (did victim have “an interest” in door?) | Residence gives sufficient interest; owner Tim lived there but Angel resided in house | Fisher argued statute requires a legal/property interest (lease, ownership) and proof of that interest | Court: A resident has “an interest” in the statute; conviction supported by sufficient evidence |
| 6) Cumulative error | Errors viewed together did not prejudice defendant given overall record | Fisher argued combined errors denied fair trial | Court: Aggregate of identified errors harmless; conviction affirmed |
| 7) Sentencing/classification of prior convictions (Apprendi claim; pre‑guidelines classification) | State relied on controlling Kansas precedent | Fisher argued prior convictions must be found by a jury beyond reasonable doubt; also raised post‑brief authority on classification | Court: Apprendi claim preserved for federal review only; other sentencing challenge failed under later controlling state precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (post‑Miranda silence generally may not be used to impeach defendant)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional harmless‑error standard)
- State v. Tully, 293 Kan. 176 (2011) (door open to impeachment of silence in limited circumstances; cumulative‑error analysis)
- State v. Tahah, 302 Kan. 783 (2015) (distinguishing preliminary juror misconduct warning from impermissible Allen coercion)
- State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405 (2014) (framework for reviewing omitted lesser‑included offense instructions)
- State v. Bollinger, 302 Kan. 309 (2015) (interpretation of “interest” in related arson context; when interest is uncontested exact nature need not be proved)