State v. Hargrove
293 P.3d 787
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hargrove challenged a jury instruction that omitted theft elements, argued as a constitutional defect in jury trial.
- The district court gave the deficient instruction; Hargrove and the State proposed the same flawed language.
- Hargrove did not testify; evidence included gloves and screwdriver tied to attempted burglary.
- The jury convicted of attempted aggravated burglary and acquitted criminal damage to property.
- Sentence imposed was 31 months; Hargrove timely appealed on the instruction and sufficiency grounds.
- Court analyzes invited error and, alternatively, postconviction relief avenues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether invited error bars review of a constitutional defect | Hargrove's counsel invited the error; constitutional defect exists | Invited error doctrine should not bar review when rights are at stake | Invited error bars direct review if tactical, but not if inadvertent or negligent; record insufficient to prove tactics; remand for habeas review possible. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted aggravated burglary | Evidence supports intent to steal and overt acts | Gaps in theft element undermine conviction | Sufficient evidence; two overt acts and intent inferred from circumstances support conviction. |
| Availability of postconviction relief for the instructional defect | Record insufficient; direct appeal blocked by invited error | Habeas remedy exists to develop record on counsel’s strategy | Hargrove may pursue K.S.A. 60-1507 habeas corpus relief to develop record on trial counsel’s strategy. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262 (2008) (defendant bound by counsel’s strategic instruction decisions)
- Schreiner v. State, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 (2011) (invited error bar applied to jury instructions; reviewed here for constitutional issues)
- Linn v. State, 251 Kan. 797 (1992) (elements of underlying offense must be included in instructions)
- Rush v. State, 255 Kan. 672 (1994) (burglary instruction must include elements of theft; harmless error framework)
- Richardson v. State, 290 Kan. 176 (2010) (underlying elements must be stated; relevance to harmless error)