State v. Lowrance, 298 Kan. 274

Background

Victim Rachel Dennis disappeared after a March 1–2, 2007 party; Lowrance drove her from the party and later led police to a bridge where he admitted throwing her body into the river.
Dennis’ body was recovered downstream with a cell-phone charger cord tightly knotted around her neck; autopsy attributed death to ligature strangulation.
Forensic testing found red-brown stains in Lowrance’s car; DNA from the seat-area biological material could not exclude Dennis.
Lowrance initially gave false accounts, later confessed to disposing of Dennis’ body and purse, but denied rape or killing; he testified to blackout memory and claimed he dumped an already-dead, fully-clothed Dennis.
The State presented testimony of a former girlfriend who described consensual premarital sex with Lowrance in his car at a river location similar to where Dennis was found; defense presented a pathologist who questioned cause of death.
Jury convicted Lowrance of capital murder under K.S.A. 21-3439(a)(4) (killing in the commission of or subsequent to attempted rape); sentence: life imprisonment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct for comments on expert fees	Prosecutor’s references to defense expert’s fee and implied that State’s expert testified for free misled jury and constituted misconduct	State argued comment was permissible impeachment of bias and reasonable inference; conceded part lacked evidentiary support but urged harmlessness	Court found comment was misconduct (no evidence State expert testified for free) but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence and defense expert’s concessions
Prosecutorial misstatement about blood evidence	Prosecutor misstated that DNA showed stains were blood, overstating the forensic testimony	State argued expert’s testing supported an inference of blood and jury could draw reasonable inferences	Court held prosecutor’s inference was permissible — evidence reasonably supported inference that stains were blood and linked to Dennis
Juror removal for taking a note	Removal was improper because judge never expressly prohibited note-taking and removal prejudiced defense	State maintained judge had discretion to remove and record showed no prejudice	Court held trial judge’s removal was within discretion and defendant did not show substantial prejudice
Admission of former girlfriend’s testimony about premarital sex	Testimony was improper character evidence (K.S.A. 60-447) and unduly prejudicial	State argued testimony was relevant to intent/modus operandi and not character trait evidence; trial court limited scope to pre-marriage incidents	Court held testimony was relevant, probative (shows pattern/modus operandi), not barred as character evidence, and not unduly prejudicial
Lay witness opinion about defendant’s intent (“trying to get some”)	Such opinion was speculative and inadmissible under K.S.A. 60-456	State argued lay opinion was rationally based on perception and helpful to jury	Court held admission proper under K.S.A. 60-456; judge did not abuse discretion because witness observed defendant and opinion aided understanding
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted rape/capital murder	No physical sexual trauma or DNA tying Lowrance to sexual contact; no overt act toward rape	State argued circumstantial evidence (intoxicated victim, removal of clothing from waist down, DNA in passenger area, conduct transporting her alone) established overt acts and intent to rape	Court held evidence sufficient for a rational factfinder to find attempted rape and capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt
Cumulative error	Multiple alleged errors deprived Lowrance of a fair trial	State argued errors were either non-existent or harmless individually and cumulatively	Court found no reversible errors that, cumulatively, required reversal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850 (prosecutorial-misconduct review framework)
State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 (prosecutorial-misconduct dual harmlessness discussion)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (constitutional harmless-error standard)
State v. Wells, 297 Kan. 741 (permissible argument about expert bias/fees)
State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501 (distinguishing facts from character-trait evidence)
State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803 (lay and opinion testimony standards under K.S.A. 60-456)
State v. Peterman, 280 Kan. 56 (overt act toward attempted rape may include transportation/preparatory acts)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (sufficiency-of-evidence standard and harmless-error principles)