State v. Knox, 301 Kan. 671

Background

On Aug. 3, 2008 Lafayette Morris was shot and killed as his Mustang pulled into a driveway; multiple witnesses saw three men shooting at the passenger side; no handgun belonging to Morris was recovered.
Investigators recovered .40 caliber casings at the passenger side and later found a .40 Taurus under the rear seat of an SUV occupied by Darren Knox; ballistics linked the .40 casings to that pistol.
Key witnesses: Krystal Fears (initially inconsistent about whether Morris fired back), Freeman (initially reluctant, later cooperated as part of a federal plea deal and implicated Knox and others), and Fears’ mother (identified Knox).
The State moved in limine to exclude evidence of drugs/guns found at the nearby house and a rifle in Morris’ car; the court granted those motions.
Knox was convicted by a jury of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced to life with 25 years before parole; he appealed raising instructional, evidentiary, Confrontation/Cross-examination, prosecutorial-misconduct, and cumulative-error claims.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Knox's Argument	Held
Self-defense instruction	Not supported because Knox and companions provoked/ambushed Morris and did not retreat or communicate termination of force	Insufficient direct evidence who fired first; jury could infer Morris fired first and Knox acted in self-defense	Denied — no factual support for self-defense; physical and forensic evidence and circumstances show Knox’s group were aggressors
Lesser-included (second-degree intentional murder) instruction	Even if warranted, any omission was harmless given strong evidence of premeditation	Omission denied jury option; absence of eyewitness to first shot leaves room for instantaneous intent (no premeditation)	Presumed error not reversible — Knox did not firmly show jury would have reached a different verdict
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (witness vouching, facts not in evidence, disparaging defense)	Statements were improper but not gross/flagrant, not motivated by ill will, and harmless in light of strong evidence	Prosecutor vouched for Freeman/Fears, argued facts not in evidence, and disparaged defense; these statements prejudiced Knox	Misconduct occurred (vouching, facts not in evidence, disparagement) but did not deprive Knox of a fair trial under Chapman standard
Exclusion of third-party-evidence (guns/drugs in house; rifle in Mustang)	Exclusion proper because mere presence of guns/drugs without connection to the crime lacks relevance	Evidence would support third-party perpetrator theory or corroborate witness testimony that Morris was armed	Affirmed — excluded evidence lacked materiality/probative link to connect a third party to the murder
Limitation of cross-examination of Fears (other-case involvement)	Ruling within discretion because defense failed to proffer details needed to assess impeachment value	Cross-examination about involvement in another case relevant to her motive to testify	Unreviewable on appeal — no proffer made, so error not preserved
Cumulative-error claim	Even combined, errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong evidence of premeditation	Multiple errors (instructional + prosecutorial) together deprived Knox of a fair trial	Denied — cumulative errors did not substantially prejudice Knox; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (four-step framework for requested-defense instructions)
State v. Salary, 301 Kan. 586 (2015) (self-defense unavailable to initial provoker who fails to retreat or communicate intent to stop)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless-error standard and Chapman analysis)
State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405 (2014) (two-step prosecutorial-misconduct review; gross-and-flagrant factors)
State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989 (2013) (prosecutor may not vouch for witness credibility; rules on improper argument)
State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614 (premeditation vs. lesser-included offenses)
State v. Kettler, 299 Kan. 448 (factors relevant to premeditation)
State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95 (necessity of proffer to preserve excluded-evidence/cross-examination issues)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional harmless-error standard)