State v. Johnson, 265 P.3d 585

Johnson was convicted of aggravated battery by aiding and abetting A.J. Haught in Holcom’s beating after a March 11–12, 2010 incident; the State’s theory was aiding and abetting under K.S.A. 21-3205.
At trial, the district court refused Johnson’s request to instruct on lesser included offenses of intentional and reckless aggravated battery.
The district court also did not give a voluntary intoxication instruction; Johnson testified she was drinking but provided a detailed account of events.
Holcom sustained severe facial injuries; A.J. Haught and Chad and Darci Drake’s associate testified, with Johnson denying asking others to harm Holcom.
Johnson appealed after the December 7, 2010 sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, arguing instructional errors and sufficiency of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lesser included offenses instruction	Johnson (Johnson) sought instruction on intentional and reckless aggravated battery.	State contends not warranted given A.J.’s intentional underlying conduct.	Court rejects; no reasonable basis for reckless when conduct was intentional.
Voluntary intoxication instruction	Johnson argues intoxication prevented forming the specific intent to aid and abet.	State argues intoxication not shown to impair requisite mental faculties.	Court rejects; evidence insufficient to show impairment to form specific intent.
Aiding and abetting alternative means	Johnson asserts 21-3205(1) presents alternative means requiring unanimity as to means.	State argues statute provides general aiding-and-abet framework, not multiple means.	Court holds 21-3205(1) does not create alternative means; conviction sustained on aiding and abetting theory.
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting	Evidence insufficient to prove Johnson aided and abetting under any theory.	Sufficient evidence shown: Johnson directed actions, motivated by anger over Holcom–Deters affair.	There was substantial evidence supporting Johnson’s conviction for aggravated battery by aiding and abetting.

Gross v. State, 24 Kan. App. 2d 806 (1998) (aggravated battery is a general intent crime; intent to cause great bodily harm not required)
State v. Mountjoy, 257 Kan. 163 (1995) (underlying act must be intentional; no need for specific intent to harm exact result)
State v. Schriner, 215 Kan. 86 (1974) (aiding and abetting requires willful participation and association with unlawful venture)
State v. Green, 280 Kan. 758 (2006) (courts favor jury determination of degree of harm; evidence governs whether great bodily harm exists)
State v. Jackson, 280 Kan. 16 (2005) (aiding and abetting considered under willful participation standard)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (unanimity not required on means where multiple alternatives exist; unanimity on guilt suffices)