State v. O'Rear, 270 P.3d 1127

Jurors convicted O’Rear of reckless aggravated battery under K.S.A. 21-3414(a)(2)(A).
The Court of Appeals affirmed; this court granted review under K.S.A. 20-3018(b) and K.S.A. 22-3602(e).
O’Rear argued the State failed to prove recklessness because he intentionally shot the victim.
The majority reversed, holding the evidence showed intentional shooting but not reckless conduct.
O’Rear admitted to intending to shoot center mass and to causing injury; the State argued the act was reckless due to misperceived threat.
The case discusses imperfect self-defense and distinguishes intentional versus reckless mens rea under Kansas law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports reckless aggravated battery	State argues O’Rear acted recklessly by shooting with insufficient information and disregarding risk	O’Rear argues he acted intentionally and that recklessness cannot attach when intent is proven	Evidence does not show recklessness; O’Rear acted intentionally

State v. Bailey, 263 Kan. 685 (1998) (distinguishes intentional vs. reckless in shooting cases ( Bailey ))
State v. Deal, 293 Kan. 872 (2012) (discusses intent vs. recklessness in similar contexts)
State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460 (1997) (second-degree reckless instruction context in shooting cases)
State v. Pierce, 260 Kan. 859 (1996) (premeditated homicide context; reckless instruction discussion)
State v. Cavaness, 278 Kan. 469 (2004) (citing Bailey in context of non-lethal outcomes and intent)
State v. Jones, 267 Kan. 627 (1999) (citing Bailey in other assaultive contexts)
State v. Kirkpatrick, 286 Kan. 329 (2008) (imperfect self-defense; not a defense outside homicide; relevance to intent)