State v. Horton
292 Kan. 437
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Horton appealing first-degree felony murder conviction; record insufficient on whether district court could reopen evidence after jury began deliberations; remanded for narrow evidentiary-reopening determination.
- Second trial added testimony from two prisoners claiming Horton admitted killing a girl under the State’s theory; no direct link to victim established.
- Horton moved to suspend deliberations to translate and review a taped call suggesting a witness-recruitment issue; district court denied reopening.
- Court previously held high discretion to reopen; Kansas cases recognize discretionary authority to permit late evidence.
- Court remands to district court to determine whether reopening is warranted for the recording and any rebuttal evidence; Supreme Court retains jurisdiction during remand.
- Appellate counsel instructed on status report due date and ongoing duties during remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion in denying reopening after deliberations began. | Horton; district court had broad discretion. | Horton; court lacked mechanism to reopen. | Abuse of discretion; remanded for narrow reopened-evidence decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murdock, 286 Kan. 661 (2008) (discretion to reopen evidence; factors for reopening)
- Anderson v. Berg, 202 Kan. 659 (1969) (reaffirmed judicial discretion in reopening cases)
- State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181 (1972) (granting permission to reopen rests in trial court's discretion)
- State v. Carmichael, 240 Kan. 149 (1986) (discretion to reopen after resting; matter of discretion)
- State v. Davis, 237 Kan. 155 (1985) (abuse if court did not allow surrebuttal evidence)
- State v. Wooden, 110 Kan. 315 (1922) (allowing State to reopen after jury instructions)
- State v. Moon, 71 Kan. 349 (1905) (reopening for impeachment testimony after evidence closed)
- State v. Teissedre, 30 Kan. 476 (1883) (opening for jurisdictional evidence during closing argument)
- Hudson v. Solomon, 19 Kan. 177 (1877) (discretion to reopen; Supreme Court elected not to reopen)
- Cook v. Ottawa Univ., 14 Kan. 548 (1875) (tribunal had discretion to reopen after referral)