State v. Pulliam, 430 P.3d 39

Background

Lorenzo Pulliam shot and killed Zach Burton and wounded Zachary Eisdorfer; three conflicting versions of events were presented at trial (victim's, Pulliam's post-arrest statement, and Pulliam's trial testimony).
Pulliam claimed he acted in self-defense (including believing Burton said "Checkmate" and hearing a gun cock), and introduced PTSD expert testimony supporting his perception and reactions.
Charges: attempted premeditated first-degree murder (Eisdorfer), intentional second-degree murder (Burton), and criminal possession of a firearm.
The district court instructed the jury on self-defense and on voluntary manslaughter (imperfect self-defense), but refused an involuntary manslaughter instruction based on a theory of a "lawful act in an unlawful manner" (K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5405(a)(4)).
Jury convicted Pulliam of attempted voluntary manslaughter (Eisdorfer), second-degree murder (Burton), and firearm possession. Pulliam appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed. Kansas Supreme Court granted review solely on whether omission of the imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter instruction was erroneous.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Pulliam's Argument	Held
Whether omission of involuntary manslaughter (imperfect self-defense under K.S.A. 21-5405(a)(4)) instruction was legally/factually appropriate	Omission proper because no evidence of reckless or unintentional killing	Instruction required because Pulliam never admitted intent to kill Burton and testified to a belief he acted in (imperfect) self-defense	Court: Omission was error — instruction was factually appropriate given Pulliam's testimony, but error was not reversible under clear-error standard
Whether K.S.A. 21-5405(a)(4) requires proof of an unintentional or reckless killing	Relied on pre-recodification cases (Houston) to argue involuntary manslaughter requires unintentional killing	Argued statute no longer requires unintentional/reckless killing after recodification	Court: Post-recodification statute does not require proof of unintentional or reckless killing for (a)(4); imperfect self-defense need not be limited to unintentional killings
Standard of review and preservation: Can Pulliam obtain reversal despite not requesting the specific instruction at trial?	The omission is reviewable but governed by K.S.A. 22-3414(3) (clear-error standard)	Same; sought reversal on appellate review	Court: Reviewable but only under clear-error standard because Pulliam did not request that precise instruction below
Prejudice/harmlessness (would jury verdict have differed; skip rule)	State argued skip rule and jury’s rejection of voluntary manslaughter made reversal unwarranted	Argued omission deprived jury of a permissible lesser option consistent with his testimony	Court: Skip rule not dispositive; but defendant did not meet clear-error burden — not firmly convinced jury would have reached different verdict

Key Cases Cited

State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 (2009) (held involuntary manslaughter required unintentional killing under prior statute)
State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 (2012) (recognized subsection (a)(4) as imperfect self-defense—lawful act with excessive force)
State v. Gregory, 218 Kan. 180 (1975) (early recognition of imperfect self-defense concept)
State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (lesser included offense instruction legal appropriateness)
State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (statutory interpretation of alternative means within a crime)
State v. Carter, 305 Kan. 139 (2016) (classification of degrees of homicide)
State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815 (2015) (clear-error standard for instructional error reversal)
State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585 (2016) (skip rule should not be mechanically applied)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless-error test and degree of certainty for instructional errors)