State v. Hardy, 347 P.3d 222

Hardy was charged with aggravated battery after shooting Javier Flores following an altercation; witness accounts conflicted about who posed a continuing threat.
After a preliminary examination bound Hardy over, he moved for statutory self-defense immunity under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5231(a).
The district court held a nonevidentiary hearing, considered preliminary transcripts, police reports, and interview recordings (much of which would be inadmissible at trial), made credibility determinations favorable to Hardy, granted immunity, and dismissed the complaint.
The State appealed the dismissal under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3602(b)(1).
The appellate court framed the core question as procedural: what process must a district court follow when resolving a claim of statutory self-defense immunity?

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedure for deciding a self-defense immunity motion	State: immunity claims must be tested by probable cause, but may rely on record materials	Hardy: district court may use submitted records and resolve credibility to grant immunity	Court: hold an evidentiary hearing procedurally comparable to a preliminary examination; rules of evidence apply and live testimony/foundations required
Burden of proof to defeat immunity	State: must show probable cause that force was unlawful	Hardy: claimed entitlement without State meeting probable-cause standard	Court: State bears burden to establish probable cause to negate immunity (as in Ultreras)
How to treat conflicting evidence/credibility	State: conflicts should be resolved in favor of the State at pretrial probable-cause stage	Hardy: district court resolved conflicts in his favor at the nonevidentiary hearing	Court: conflicts must be construed favoring the State (like a preliminary examination); credibility findings that decide guilt belong to jury/trial
Timing and consolidation with preliminary examination	State: immunity should be decided early and may be combined with prelim exam	Hardy: moved after bindover but sought ruling pretrial	Court: courts may require immunity motions early and combine them with the preliminary examination; Hardy may renew motion consistent with proper procedure

State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 295 P.3d 1020 (Kan. 2013) (State must show probable cause to defeat statutory self-defense immunity)
Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2009) (discusses evidence sources for probable-cause determinations at preliminary stage)
State v. Jones, 298 Kan. 324, 311 P.3d 1125 (Kan. 2013) (timing: defendant must assert statutory self-defense immunity before trial)
State v. Bell, 268 Kan. 764, 1 P.3d 325 (Kan. 2000) (at prelim, conflicting testimony must be accepted in the version most favorable to the State)
State v. Cremer, 234 Kan. 594, 676 P.2d 59 (Kan. 1984) (rules of evidence apply at preliminary examinations)