State v. Miller, 427 P.3d 907

Background

In 2005 Martin K. Miller was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder of his wife; conviction affirmed (State v. Miller). Postconviction relief later led to a retrial ordered by appellate courts; Miller was retried in 2015 and again convicted and sentenced to hard-25 life.
Prosecution theory: Miller strangled his wife to pursue a long-term extramarital “double life” (affair, online dating, pornography) and benefit from life insurance. Defense presented alternative medical causes (seizure, cardiomyopathy, anaphylaxis).
Key evidence/admissions at retrial: children’s testimony about screams during the night; autopsy by Dr. Erik Mitchell concluding homicidal asphyxiation; defense experts disagreeing; testimony and documents about Miller’s affair, dating profiles, and life insurance.
Pretrial and trial disputes included denial of change of venue, denial of DA office disqualification (ADA housed a State witness), admission of Miller’s prior trial testimony (redacted), limiting instructions, jury selection rulings (denial of several for-cause strikes; juror A.S. seated), and admission/scope of expert/rebuttal testimony.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the retrial conviction and sentence, addressing venue (presumed and actual prejudice), juror challenges, bifurcation, limiting instructions, DA disqualification, judicial conduct, admission of evidence, expert testimony preservation, and cumulative error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Miller)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Change of venue based on pretrial publicity	Publicity from prior trial and retrial surveys presumptively or actually prejudiced jury pool	Extensive factual coverage not necessarily prejudicial; voir dire showed jurors could be impartial; size/time factors mitigate prejudice	Denial affirmed: no presumed prejudice under Skilling factors; voir dire and protective measures defeated actual prejudice claim
Denial of for-cause strikes (esp. juror A.S.)	Juror A.S. and others had fixed opinions from prior conviction; seating A.S. denied impartial jury and forced exhaustion of peremptories	Many jurors said they could set aside prior knowledge; Farrar/Cook allow prior-conviction knowledge not inherently disqualifying; defendant failed to show actual prejudice	Affirmed: deference to trial judge demeanor findings; defendant failed to show prejudice from claimed erroneous for-cause denials
Bifurcation request under K.S.A. 60-242(b)	Evidence of motive (affair, dating, insurance) would unduly prejudice homicide vs. natural death determination; separate element trials necessary	Civil bifurcation statute is discretionary; criminal jury must decide guilt applying all facts together; piecemeal trials inappropriate	Denied: trial court acted within discretion; criminal trials not suited to element-by-element bifurcation
Admission of State pathologist’s homicide opinion (and whether opinion relied on nonmedical investigative facts)	Dr. Mitchell’s opinion impermissibly relied on investigative/contextual facts and credibility assessments, invading jury province and was inadmissible; without it State lacked proof of homicide	No timely contemporaneous objection to preserve evidentiary challenge; doctor qualified; context is proper for cause/manner opinions	Not reviewed on merits due to lack of timely objection; issue deemed not preserved under K.S.A. 60-404; conviction stands

Key Cases Cited

State v. Miller, 284 Kan. 682 (2007) (affirming first conviction and addressing admission of pornography evidence)
Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921 (2014) (ordering new trial based on appellate counsel error regarding jury instruction)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (factors for presumed prejudice from pretrial publicity)
State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 (2014) (application of Skilling factors and standard for venue change)
State v. Longoria, 301 Kan. 489 (2015) (change-of-venue analysis where pervasive publicity favored presumed prejudice)
State v. Hudgins, 301 Kan. 629 (2015) (factors for actual prejudice analysis)
State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901 (2014) (discussion of presumed prejudice and voir dire)
State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658 (2002) (admissibility of prior trial testimony at retrial)
State v. Cook, 281 Kan. 961 (2006) (holding that juror knowledge of earlier conviction not inherently disqualifying)