State v. Lopez, 299 Kan. 324

On Nov. 13, 2009, occupants of a silver Honda (Lopez driving, Molina passenger) engaged with members of rival F13 gang after a gas-station confrontation; Molina fired into the rival car, killing two brothers.
Police officers witnessed muzzle flash and chased the Honda; front-seat occupants fled, backseat juvenile surrendered; Molina was captured, Lopez initially eluded arrest.
Eyewitnesses: Officer Pittman identified Lopez from a police photo as the driver; juvenile passenger Max Palomino testified Lopez drove and helped position the Honda for Molina’s shooting (though Palomino made inconsistent prior statements).
Lopez and Molina were tried together; both convicted of first-degree premeditated murder; Lopez also convicted of fleeing/eluding.
District court imposed a hard-50 life sentence (mandatory minimum 50 years) on one murder count and hard-25 on the other; Lopez appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence and sentencing considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: identity/driver	State: Officer Pittman and Palomino reliably placed Lopez as driver	Lopez: Pittman and Palomino were unreliable; testimony conflicted and thus insufficient	Affirmed — jury credibility determinations upheld; evidence sufficient to place Lopez as driver
Sufficiency: premeditation (aiding/abetting)	State: Lopez’s conduct (following, positioning car, getaway) and gang animus support inference of premeditation	Lopez: No direct evidence he knew Molina would shoot; accomplice testimony inconsistent	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence supported finding Lopez had premeditated intent
Sentencing relevance: prior acquittal	State: prior homicide trial knowledge relevant to community-danger argument	Lopez: Prior acquittal has no probative value at sentencing; irrelevant and prejudicial	Affirmed — district court erred procedurally by referencing prior trial facts but any error was harmless; K.S.A. grants broad sentencing consideration
Sentencing weighing of aggravators/mitigators	State: multiple deaths and role justify hard 50	Lopez: court improperly weighed factors, relied on prior acquittal	Affirmed — court’s weighing not an abuse of discretion; sufficient independent aggravating evidence

State v. Harris, 297 Kan. 1076 (2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Qualls, 297 Kan. 61 (2013) (factors for premeditation inquiry)
State v. Corbett, 281 Kan. 294 (2006) (eyewitness-identification reliability and jury role)
State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499 (2009) (aiding/abetting requires defendant possessed specific intent of premeditation)
State v. Overstreet, 288 Kan. 1 (2009) (premeditation principles)
State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113 (2005) (weighing aggravators/mitigators)
State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 (2011) (direct evidence of premeditation is rare; circumstantial evidence suffices)
State v. Doyle, 272 Kan. 1157 (2002) (circumstantial proof of premeditation)
State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614 (2008) (enumerating premeditation factors)
State v. Bey, 217 Kan. 251 (1975) (uncorroborated accomplice testimony can sustain conviction)
State v. Mclaughlin, 207 Kan. 594 (1971) (same)
State v. Richardson, 256 Kan. 69 (1994) (broad evidentiary latitude at sentencing under statute)
State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58 (1997) (trial court may consider broad range of matters under K.S.A. sentencing scheme)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless-error framework for sentencing issues)
State v. Nelson, 296 Kan. 692 (2013) (standard of review for hard-50 weighing)