State v. Randle, 462 P.3d 624

Background

Victim Timothy Golden was shot in his Wichita apartment; surveillance showed three masked men approach and flee; 21 shell casings and a crossfire pattern were found.
One shooter was linked to the scene by a GPS ankle monitor showing Randle’s location; DNA on recovered fabric could not exclude Randle as a major contributor.
A jailhouse phone call recording included Randle saying he “shot” and referencing "Dakahri."
A jury convicted Randle of first-degree premeditated murder and criminal discharge of a firearm; he was sentenced to life without parole for 50 years plus a consecutive 13-month term.
On direct appeal Randle challenged: (1) denial of a requested lesser‑included instruction for unintentional but reckless second‑degree murder; (2) admission of two out‑of‑court statements as hearsay; (3) admission of autopsy photos, a crime‑scene video, and booking photos; and (4) denial of a downward departure at sentencing.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Randle's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by refusing a requested instruction on unintentional but reckless second‑degree murder	Instruction not factually supported; evidence points to intentional/premeditated shooting and admissions	Window/curtain ambiguity could show he didn’t know victim was inside; criminal discharge conviction required recklessness	Assuming error, any omission was harmless given overwhelming evidence of premeditation and the jury convicted on the higher offense; affirmed
Whether two out‑of‑court questions/statements were inadmissible hearsay	Statements offered non‑assertively to show connection to gun and that a codefendant was looking for victim; one declarant testified and denied the statement so K.S.A. 60‑460(a) permitted it	Statements were offered for truth (possession/location and that Triplett asked where victim lived) and thus inadmissible hearsay	No error: both inquiries admitted as non‑hearsay circumstantial evidence; the detective’s testimony about Phillips was admissible because Phillips was present and denied the statement at trial (statutory exception applied)
Whether autopsy photos, crime‑scene video, and two custody photos were unduly prejudicial	Photos/video relevant to injuries, scene layout, and identification; selection limited to non‑cumulative useful images	Photos/videos were gruesome, cumulative, or duplicative and unfairly prejudicial	No abuse of discretion: court limited autopsy photos, video aided scene understanding and was not overly gruesome, and both custody photos had independent probative value
Whether sentencing court abused discretion denying departure	Departure unwarranted given facts and perpetrator’s role; mitigating factors insufficient here	Family support, community programs, intoxication, and lesser role justified departure	No abuse of discretion: district court reasonably concluded mitigating facts were not substantial and compelling for departure

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gentry, 310 Kan. 715 (2019) (standard for analyzing lesser‑included instruction requests and reversibility burden when defendant requests instruction)
State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (when defendant requests instruction, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant)
State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 242 (2016) (discusses lesser‑included instruction framework; court here disapproved an erroneous statement in Fisher)
State v. Louis, 305 Kan. 453 (2016) (lists factors supporting inference of premeditation)
State v. Carter, 305 Kan. 139 (2016) (holding a first‑degree premeditated murder verdict means the jury did not and would not reach lesser reckless murder)
State v. Bowen, 299 Kan. 339 (2014) (appellate review standards for hearsay evidentiary rulings)
State v. Cosby, 293 Kan. 121 (2011) (a question may constitute an out‑of‑court "statement" under hearsay rules)
Boldridge v. State, 289 Kan. 618 (2009) (statements used circumstantially to create inferences are not hearsay)
State v. Williams, 308 Kan. 1320 (2018) (framework for admitting photographic evidence and weighing probative value against prejudicial effect)
State v. Tague, 296 Kan. 993 (2013) (discusses limits on admitting gruesome autopsy photographs)
State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (2011) (crime‑scene video admissible to aid jury understanding despite overlap with still photos)
State v. Hines, 296 Kan. 608 (2013) (mitigating factors may justify departure in one case but not another; deferential review)