State v. Llamas
298 Kan. 246
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Llamas was convicted by jur y of felony murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle under K.S.A. 21-3401(b) and 21-4219(b) respectively; the State alleged he aided and abetted Navarro, who fired the gun and intimidated Flores.
- Navarro and Flores ran a methamphetamine deal; Flores failed to pay Navarro, causing escalation and threats.
- Llamas, often with Navarro and Navarro’s girlfriend’s brother Michael Camarena, participated in the pursuit of Flores and in the events surrounding the shooting.
- Navarro used a long rifle; Llamas testified to being present and aware of Navarro’s actions; Llamas walked to the store after the shooting.
- Surveillance, phone records, and witness testimony placed Llamas with Navarro before, during, and after the shooting; the motel scene and the convenience store video were key pieces of evidence.
- The trial court instructed on aiding and abetting per PIK Crim. 3d 54.05; Llamas argued for addition of a mere association/presence clause; the court ultimately declined to add it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting | Llamas argues no willful participation | State contends circumstantial evidence shows intent to aid | Evidence sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt |
| Failure to include mere association/presence language | Llamas argues instruction lacked defense guidance | Court properly refused but pattern instruction sufficed | No reversible error under standard; error deemed harmless and language addition not required |
| Accomplice instruction regarding Ruby | Ruby should be listed as accomplice | Only Meyers needed as accomplice | Instruction error found; harmless error analysis applied, not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edwards, 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (whether to add mere association/presence language to aiding and abetting instruction)
- State v. Herron, 189 P.3d 1173 (2008) (distinguishes mere presence from willful participation in aiding and abetting)
- State v. Simmons, 148 P.3d 525 (2006) (mere presence during planning does not make one an accomplice)
- State v. Pink, 20 P.3d 31 (2001) (pattern instruction; mere association language)
- State v. Gant, 201 P.3d 673 (2009) (driving to or from crime supports aiding and abetting)