State v. Keeler, 128048

A jury convicted Keeler of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after he pointed an unloaded, inoperable crossbow at neighbors Robles and Kingsland. 1
Robles and Kingsland testified they saw Keeler at his doorway holding and looking at them through a scoped crossbow and feared he might shoot them or their infant son. 2
Keeler told police he used the crossbow scope to observe people from inside his apartment and admitted he should have removed the scope so no one thought he was pointing it at them. 3
The jury convicted Keeler, and the district court ordered him to register as a violent offender based on a deadly-weapon finding in the journal entry. 4
On appeal, Keeler challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, a missing simple-assault instruction, the use of a knowing mental state, and the violent-offender registration order. 5
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon? 7	The State proved only simple assault; no contemporaneous threat or intent to communicate harm.	Keeler intended victims to perceive the crossbow as deadly.	Yes; sufficient evidence supported both convictions. 8
Was omission of a simple-assault instruction clear error? 9	Keeler says the jury lacked a lesser option and likely would have convicted of simple assault.	Even with the instruction, the jury would still convict aggravated assault.	No; Keeler failed to show clear error. 10
Was the jury wrongly instructed on mens rea? 11	The court should have required an intentional, not knowing, mental state.	Aggravated assault is a general-intent crime; the statute requires knowing conduct.	No; the instruction was not erroneous and no clear error shown. 12
Was the violent-offender registration order improper? 13	No proper deadly-weapon finding was made, and the crossbow was not deadly for KORA.	The journal entry and evidence adequately supported registration.	No; the registration order was affirmed. 14

State v. Mendez, 319 Kan. 718 (Kan. 2024) (sufficiency review views evidence in the light most favorable to the State 15)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (due process requires proof of every offense element beyond a reasonable doubt 16)
State v. Lowe, 317 Kan. 713 (Kan. 2023) (deadly weapon definition may involve objective or subjective components 17)
State v. Deutscher, 225 Kan. 265 (Kan. 1979) (unloaded revolver can be a deadly weapon when used to communicate apparent ability to harm 18)
State v. Davis, 227 Kan. 174 (Kan. 1980) (an inoperable gun can still support weapon-based liability where the victim is intended to believe it is dangerous 19)
State v. Holley, 313 Kan. 249 (Kan. 2021) (framework for reviewing jury-instruction challenges 20)
State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 (Kan. 2012) (clear-error reversal requires firm conviction the jury would have reached a different verdict 21)
State v. Kershaw, 302 Kan. 772 (Kan. 2015) (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a general-intent crime 22)
State v. Carter, 311 Kan. 206 (Kan. 2020) (KORA deadly-weapon finding and registration analysis; journal-entry check box can suffice 23)
State v. Marinelli, 307 Kan. 768 (Kan. 2018) (KORA notice/timing issues do not carry an express consequence for late notice 24)
State v. Juarez, 312 Kan. 22 (Kan. 2020) (plurality discusses timing of KORA notice and factual findings 25)