State v. Harris, 297 Kan. 1076

Harris was convicted of felony murder with aggravated robbery as the underlying felony and of aggravated robbery by threat of bodily harm.
The State charged aggravated robbery as taking money and drugs from Martin by threat of bodily harm while armed with a handgun; the taking by force was disputed.
Circumstantial evidence at the scene included Martin dead from multiple gunshot wounds, cash in pockets, and the absence of forced entry, consistent with a robbery carried out in close quarters.
Harris gave two statements to police; initial denial followed by a later account in which he described participation with Gibson and Blakeney, including being told to enter the house and shoot Martin.
The State’s theory was that Harris either actively participated or aided and abetted Gibson and Blakeney; the jury found Harris guilty of felony murder and aggravated robbery.
Harris challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the mistrial ruling for prosecutorial misconduct, and the interpretation of the felony-murder statute’s ‘in the commission of, attempting to commit, or flight from’ language.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for threat-of-bodily-harm theory	Harris argues the State failed to prove the taking was accomplished by threat of bodily harm.	State contends circumstantial evidence supports threat-based taking given timing and gunshot sequence.	Sufficient evidence supporting threat of bodily harm exists.
Mistrial denial for prosecutorial misconduct	Harris contends prosecutor’s comment impugned defense counsel and warranted mistrial.	State argues comment was isolated, not prejudicial, and did not constitute a fundamental failure.	Prosecutorial comment did not constitute fundamental misconduct; mistrial denial affirmed.
Alternative means of felony murder under K.S.A. 21-3401(b)	Cheffen-like issue: statute does not create alternative means; must prove all elements of one theory.	State argued the statute permits proving the killing occurred during any of several related circumstances.	Statute does not create separate alternative means; evidence supports the charged theory and related circumstances.

State v. Qualls, 297 Kan. 61 (2013) (sufficiency review; standard; circumstantial evidence acceptable)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (mistrial standard; prejudice analysis framework)
State v. Race, 293 Kan. 69 (2011) (mistrial and prejudice considerations; abuse of discretion)
State v. Mireles, 297 Kan. 339 (2013) (prosecutorial misconduct analysis; two-step approach)
State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414 (2011) (prosecutorial misconduct boundaries; limits of remarks)
State v. White, 284 Kan. 333 (2007) (comment on credibility; limits of prosecutorial remarks)
State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501 (2000) (remarks about defense; prosecutorial misconduct guidance)
State v. Cheffen, 297 Kan. 689 (2013) (felony-murder alternative means interpretation; Cheffen applied to declare no alternative means in statute)