State v. Horton, 254 P.3d 1264

In Horton v. State, Horton was convicted of first-degree felony murder in a 2003 retrial after DNA confirmed the victim's remains were L.W. from 1974.
The State's theory relied on Horton's proximity to the victim, car materials, and interactions with other teenage girls, rather than direct evidence linking him to the death.
Two prison witnesses testified Horton claimed to have killed a girl under the State's theory; the defense sought to introduce additional evidence concerning a recorded telephone call between one witness and the other witness's mother.
After evidence was presented and closing arguments, Horton's counsel moved to suspend deliberations to translate and analyze the recording; the district court refused, citing lack of authority to reopen the case.
Horton appealed, arguing the district court had discretion to reopen the case for additional evidence; the court of appeals remanded for consideration of this issue.
The Kansas Supreme Court concluded the record was insufficient to determine whether the district court abused its discretion and remanded for a narrow hearing on whether to reopen the presentation of evidence regarding the recording and any rebuttal by the State.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the evidence after deliberations began	Horton argues the court had discretion to reopen for admissible evidence	State asserts no mechanism allowed reopening after submission	Abuse of discretion; remand for a hearing on reopening

State v. Murdock, 286 Kan. 661 (2008) (discretion to reopen evidence; factors for reopening)
State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181 (1972) (reopening rests in sound discretion of trial court)
State v. Carmichael, 240 Kan. 149 (1986) (whether to reopen for additional evidence is discretionary)
State v. Davis, 237 Kan. 155 (1985) (abuse when court refused to allow surrebuttal evidence)
State v. Wooden, 110 Kan. 315 (1922) (reopening allowed after instructions given)
State v. Moon, 71 Kan. 349 (1905) (reopening for newly discovered impeachment testimony)
State v. Teissedre, 30 Kan. 476 (1883) (reopening to present jurisdictional evidence during closing)
Hudson v. Solomon, 19 Kan. 177 (1877) (prudential discretion to reopen; not compelled to)
Cook v. Ottawa University, 14 Kan. 548 (1875) (tribunal discretion to reopen after reference decision)
Anderson v. Berg, 202 Kan. 659 (1969) (judicial discretion respected; abuse when improper foundation)
Powell v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 290 Kan. 564 (2010) (abuse when tribunal fails to exercise discretion)