State v. Galloway, 459 P.3d 195

Background

On May 15, 2015 a burning pickup and the body of Robin Fought were found in a rural Cherokee County field; the body had stab wounds and partial burning; a knife and sledgehammer with blood were at the scene.
Galloway and her boyfriend Cunningham were seen abandoning a van and later camping; a friend provided police Galloway’s phone, which contained photos of the scene, a preparedness list, and texts indicating anticipated violence.
DNA testing showed Galloway’s blood on the murder weapon’s handle, on a gas can, and on burned paper found in the gas can.
Galloway and Cunningham were arrested May 17; Galloway was interrogated (recorded) for ~2.5 hours and gave statements later used to impeach her trial testimony.
The State charged Galloway with premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated arson, and interference with law enforcement; a jury convicted her on all counts and the court imposed a controlling hard-50 life sentence.
On appeal Galloway challenged (1) denial of change of venue, (2) denial of suppression of interrogation statements, (3) alleged closed-court handling of a jury question (public-trial right), (4) a jury-duty instruction, and (5) the sentencing judge’s refusal to consider lack of prior criminal history as a mitigating factor.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Galloway)	Held
Change of venue (K.S.A. 22-2616)	Publicity was not so pervasive that jurors could not be screened; trial court properly exercised discretion	Pretrial publicity and small community tainted jury pool, requiring venue change	Denial affirmed; Galloway failed to show community prejudice or that publicity displaced the judicial process
Suppression — voluntariness of interrogation statements	Statements were voluntary under totality of circumstances; defendant coherent and responsive	Statements involuntary due to fatigue, low blood sugar, pregnancy/gestational diabetes, and impairment	Denial affirmed; record showed lucidity, understanding, no coercion; officers provided food/drink, no indicia statements were coerced
Public-trial right — handling of jury question during deliberations	Record indicates discussion occurred in open court (no showing otherwise); defendant did not contemporaneously object	Discussion occurred outside open court (closed), violating right to public trial	No reversible error; record does not affirmatively show closed proceeding and Galloway failed to preserve/create record of error
Jury-duty instruction — statement that jury should find guilty if facts support it	Instruction correctly stated law and duty to follow law; consistent with recent precedents	Instruction improperly discouraged jury nullification	Held correct; instruction not erroneous under controlling precedent
Sentencing — refusal to consider lack of prior convictions as mitigating	Judge’s mistaken legal view; but other stated reasons showed he would have denied downward departure anyway	Judge erred as a matter of law by refusing to consider statutory mitigating factor (no significant prior criminal history)	Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing because judge wrongly refused to consider lack of criminal history; harmlessness not established

Key Cases Cited

State v. Longoria, 301 Kan. 489, 343 P.3d 1128 (Kan. 2015) (standard for change of venue / rare necessity to displace local forum)
State v. Verge, 272 Kan. 501, 34 P.3d 449 (Kan. 2001) (media publicity alone insufficient to show presumed prejudice)
State v. Higgenbotham, 271 Kan. 582, 23 P.3d 874 (Kan. 2001) (survey evidence and publicity may not require venue change where juror screening suffices)
State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 331 P.3d 544 (Kan. 2014) (nine-factor framework for evaluating venue prejudice)
State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 301 P.3d 300 (Kan. 2013) (totality-of-circumstances voluntariness factors for confessions)
State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 190 P.3d 207 (Kan. 2008) (enumerating factors to assess voluntariness of statements)
State v. Holmes, 278 Kan. 603, 102 P.3d 406 (Kan. 2004) (sleep deprivation/drug use do not automatically render statements involuntary where defendant is coherent)
State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 145 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2006) (similar treatment of alleged impairment during interrogation)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (jury, not judge, must find facts that increase mandatory minimums)
State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 322 P.3d 367 (Kan. 2014) (hard-50 Alleyne error is rarely harmless)
McIntyre v. State, 305 Kan. 616, 385 P.3d 930 (Kan. 2016) (litigant must request findings to preserve review of omitted findings)
State v. Sappington, 285 Kan. 176, 169 P.3d 1107 (Kan. 2007) (appellant bears burden to designate record showing prejudicial error)