State v. Hollister, 300 Kan. 458

Hollister was convicted of capital murder under K.S.A. 21-3439(a)(2) for the intentional, premeditated killing of Patricia Kimmi under a contract or agreement to kill.
Hollister died after his direct appeal was filed, raising mootness questions about whether the appeal should continue.
Kansas does not automatically abate a direct appeal upon a defendant's death, but the court may limit which issues it will consider.
The court concluded only an issue potentially exonerating Hollister, an insufficiency of evidence claim, merited consideration; other issues were deemed moot.
Evidence linked Hollister to the crime via DNA from the second scene, possession of related items, witnesses, and his conduct surrounding the disappearance.
The court affirmed the conviction on sufficiency grounds and dismissed other issues as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the death of a defendant abates or moots the direct appeal	Hollister	Hollister	Non-abatement with selective meriting of issues
Was there sufficient evidence of a contract to kill Patricia Kimmi?	Evidence supports contract evidenced by statements and conduct	Insufficient direct evidence of contract	Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported a contract
Was there sufficient evidence of premeditation for capital murder?	Premeditation shown by conduct and surrounding circumstances	No direct evidence of weapon, blows, or threats	Circumstantial factors supported premeditation
Are the other asserted trial errors reversible per se given Hollister's death?	Errors would require remand for retrial if alive	Errors could be addressed on appeal though moot due to death	Other issues deemed moot and not addressed

State v. Burnison, 247 Kan. 19 (1990) (death of defendant does not abate direct appeal; public interest in merit adjudication)
State v. Jones, 220 Kan. 136 (1976) (death during pendency of direct appeal does not abate appeal)
State v. Karson, 297 Kan. 634 (2013) (public interest considerations may permit reviewing merits after death)
State v. Hand, 297 Kan. 734 (2013) (review of petition for review for public interest even after death)
State v. Martens, 279 Kan. 242 (2005) (mootness doctrine allows considering issues of statewide interest or repetition)
State v. Ellvin, 51 Kan. 784 (1893) (historical note on costs and substitution in appeals)
State v. Fisher, 37 Kan. 404 (1887) (costs and related matters in appeals discussed)
State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263 (2009) (death after notice of appeal does not render appeal moot)