State v. Hastings, 122184

In May 2018, A.S. went to Hastings' home to buy marijuana; an ensuing sexual encounter was disputed as consensual and A.S. later reported injuries. Sexual-assault exams documented bruising and a scratch.
Police executed a warrant at Hastings' home and seized two large bags of marijuana, $700 in cash, and a black rifle from his bedroom.
A jury acquitted Hastings on one rape count and two aggravated sodomy counts, deadlocked on a second rape count (mistrial), but convicted him of sale of marijuana, two counts of felony possession of drug paraphernalia, and criminal possession of a firearm by a felon.
Hastings was sentenced to 82 months and appealed, raising (1) that K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6304(a) (felon-in-possession) is unconstitutional under §4 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and (2) that voir dire remarks by a potential juror prejudiced his right to a fair trial and warranted a mistrial.
At voir dire, two potential jurors referenced Hastings' reputation (one said he was "as notorious as Jesse James" and another repeated that phrase and stated "Right now he's guilty"); both were excused for cause and Hastings moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied.
The Court of Appeals declined to consider the unpreserved constitutional challenge (following State v. Gray) and affirmed the denial of the mistrial motion, concluding Hastings failed to show substantial prejudice; the State's cross-appeal on sentencing issues was abandoned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6304(a) (felon-in-possession) violates §4 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights	Hastings: §4 guarantees firearm possession for all Kansans; statute unconstitutional	State: claim was unpreserved and should not be reviewed on appeal	Court: Declined to review the unpreserved constitutional claim (prudential refusal per State v. Gray)
Whether voir dire comments comparing Hastings to "Jesse James" required a mistrial	Hastings: juror comments infected the panel, eroded presumption of innocence, and caused fundamental failure	State: jurors who made the comments were excused; voir dire and jury instructions cured any defect; no substantial prejudice shown	Court: Denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion; no substantial prejudice and verdict indicates careful weighing of evidence

State v. Johnson, 309 Kan. 992, 441 P.3d 1036 (2019) (discusses exceptions for reviewing unpreserved claims on appeal)
State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164, 459 P.3d 165 (2020) (court may prudentially decline to review unpreserved claims; refused to apply exceptions)
State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131, 322 P.3d 353 (2014) (two-step standard for mistrial: fundamental failure and possibility of continuing without injustice)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court rulings explained)
State v. Wells, 289 Kan. 1219, 221 P.3d 561 (2009) (burden on party alleging abuse of discretion)
State v. Harris, 293 Kan. 798, 269 P.3d 820 (2012) (speculative prejudice from juror statements insufficient to show reversible error)
State v. McCorgary, 224 Kan. 677, 585 P.2d 1024 (1978) (curative steps and dismissal of biased juror can mitigate prejudice)
State v. Mayberry, 248 Kan. 369, 807 P.2d 86 (1991) (court instructions can cure prejudicial juror comments)
State v. Yurk, 230 Kan. 516, 638 P.2d 921 (1982) (prejudice shown where a seated juror exposed jury to defendant's prior convictions)
State v. Holt, 285 Kan. 760, 175 P.3d 239 (2008) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648, 413 P.3d 787 (2018) (issues not argued on appeal are treated as abandoned)