State v. Plummer, 283 P.3d 202

Plummer was convicted of aggravated robbery for taking merchandise from a Target store security officer using force or threats and inflicting bodily harm.
Defense moved for judgment of acquittal arguing taking occurred before force; district court denied.
During jury instruction, court granted theft and robbery instructions but refused theft as a lesser included offense; Plummer was convicted of aggravated robbery.
Court of Appeals reversed, holding theft should have been instructed; cited Saylor for the idea that timing of taking can support a theft conviction.
State petitioned for review; Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal and remanded for new trial, adopting a framework for review and harmless-error analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review	Plummer favors a strict, evidence-based standard.	Plummer contends the panel used the wrong standard and should affirm under an objective standard.	Correct standard requires unlimited review for legality; harms analysis follows.
Theft as a lesser included offense	Theft is a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery under state precedent.	Theft may be legally included but must be factually supported by evidence.	Theft is legally a lesser included offense; here there was sufficient evidence theft was completed before the confrontation.
Harmless error analysis	Failure to instruct on theft is reversible error regardless of harm.	Error could be harmless if verdict indicates no prejudice.	Error not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; contributes to outcome; remand for new trial.
Skip rule applicability	Skip rule should not save the conviction when another lesser offense instruction was omitted.	Skip rule may cure prejudice if greater offense verdict implies lesser offense.	Skip rule cannot salvage here; conviction reversed and remanded.

State v. Long, 234 Kan. 580 (1984) (theft is a lesser degree of the same crime as robbery for purposes of inclusion)
State v. Saylor, 228 Kan. 498 (1980) (theft committed when taking is concealed in a self-service store with intent)
State v. Knowles, 209 Kan. 676 (1972) (theft requires unauthorized control with intent to deprive)
State v. Aldershof, 220 Kan. 798 (1976) (whether taking is completed before force determines robbery vs theft)
State v. Dean, 250 Kan. 257 (1992) (timing of taking and threat determines robbery vs theft)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless-error framework for non-constitutional errors)
Jones, 279 Kan. 395 (2005) (standard for viewing evidence in favor of defendant on request for instruction)