State v. Hall, 257 P.3d 272

Background

In May 2008, Hall shot Pamela McMaster in the back four times in a motel parking area after riding in Leona Pahmahmie's car; he fled the scene with the gun and was later found with clothing matching what he wore at the time and a loaded handgun.
Hall was charged with first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm and convicted by a jury.
The defense argued prosecutorial misconduct in closing, improper failure to instruct on second-degree murder as a lesser included offense, and insufficient evidence of premeditation; Hall also challenged sentencing under Apprendi/ Ivory.
The State conceded some closing-argument misstatements but argued they were not prejudicial given the trial record and jury instructions.
The district court gave first- and second-degree murder instructions but did not instruct under PIK Crim.3d 68.09; Hall did not request that instruction.
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the prosecutor’s misstatement did not prejudice the outcome, the 68.09 instruction error was not reversible, and the evidence supported premeditation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Hall contends prosecutor misstated evidence and law on premeditation, injected belief, and inflamed passions.	Hall argues misstatements and improper comments denied a fair trial.	Misstatements found but not prejudicial; no reversal.
Misstatement of law on premeditation	Hall asserts prosecutor implied instantaneous premeditation after first shot.	State contends theory was legally permissible as possible (theoretical) sequence.	Prosecutor misstated law; however, error did not affect the outcome.
Injection of personal belief and inflammatory rhetoric	Hall claims prosecutor expressed guilt opinions and urged a verdict.	State contends comments did not amount to improper opinion or prejudice.	No reversible error; statements did not improperly influence guilt verdict.
Cumulative error	Two errors cumulatively deprived Hall of a fair trial.	The errors were not collectively prejudicial given substantial evidence of premeditation.	Cumulative error not established; convictions affirmed.
Jury instruction on lesser included offense	Hall argues failure to give 68.09 instruction violated due process.	State asserts 68.09 instruction not required given context and evidence.	Failure to give 68.09 was not reversible; no substantial difference in verdict.
Sufficiency of premeditation evidence	State failed to prove design to kill before act given quick sequence and lack of prior relationship.	Premeditation inferred from Cravatt factors despite lack of provocation or known relationship.	Evidence sufficient to support premeditation and first-degree murder.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Morton, 277 Kan. 575, 86 P.3d 535 (2004) (Kan. 2004) (reversible error for instantaneous premeditation implication)
State v. Cravatt, 267 Kan. 314, 979 P.2d 679 (1999) (Kan. 1999) (factors for inferring premeditation)
State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, 996 P.2d 321 (2000) (Kan. 2000) (prosecutor’s comments; standard for improper opinion)
State v. Massey, 242 Kan. 252, 747 P.2d 802 (1987) (Kan. 1987) (68.09 instruction; earlier due-process discussion)
State v. Trujillo, 225 Kan. 320, 590 P.2d 1027 (1979) (Kan. 1979) (scope of lesser-included offenses and due process)
State v. Saleem, 267 Kan. 100, 977 P.2d 921 (1999) (Kan. 1999) (premeditation doctrine in rapid-fire sequences; theoretical possibility)
State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 172 P.3d 1165 (2007) (Kan. 2007) (prosecutorial influence; permissible general justice language)
State v. Wheeler, State v. Henry (2002) (contextual on misstatement and fairness)