291 P.3d 512
Kan. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rivera appeals jury convictions for involuntary manslaughter and endangering a child.
- Sufficiency: argues lack of proximate cause; evidence largely circumstantial.
- Pretrial/trial errors: claims prosecutorial conflict, continuance denial, and improper jury instructions harmed fair trial.
- Trial issues: district court gave preliminary manslaughter instruction later cured; unanimity concerns arose; underlying offense elements not listed in manslaughter instruction.
- CINC-related evidence: State’s informal supervision agreement and no-contact order were at issue for motive/credibility.
- Remand: court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for new trial due to multiple instructional and unanimity errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proximate causation for involuntary manslaughter | Rivera: Jones’ conduct was independent cause. | Rivera: no sufficient link to proximate cause. | Sufficient evidence supports proximate cause. |
| Prosecutor disqualification or witness disclosure | Rivera: prosecutor privy to exculpatory info. | No significant personal interest; not required. | No abuse of discretion; disqualification not warranted. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire/closing | Rivera: improper remarks biased jury. | Comments within wide latitude; not prejudicial. | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; trial fair. |
| Preliminary vs final jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter | Preliminary misstatement misled jury. | Final instruction cured prejudice; instructions were controlling. | Cure by final instruction acceptable; prejudicial error cured. |
| Unanimity and multiple acts in underlying endangering a child | State failed to elect act; could convict on Oct. 1 or 4. | Could convict on either; no unanimity instruction given. | Remand for new trial due to lack of unanimity instruction. |
| Endangering a child as a lesser included offense | Endangering a child is subsumed by involuntary manslaughter. | Parks permits dual conviction; not a lesser included offense issue here. | Not barred; can be convicted of both. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review in criminal cases)
- State v. Scott, 285 Kan. 366, 171 P.3d 639 (2007) (proximate cause and reckless mens rea guidance)
- Davidson v. State, 267 Kan. 667, 987 P.2d 335 (1999) (foreseeability can support extreme indifference in manslaughter context)
- Kuxhausen v. Tillman Partners, 291 Kan. 314, 241 P.3d 75 (2010) (definition of proximate cause; natural and probable consequences)
- State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 136 P.3d 919 (2006) (standard for appellate review of witness credibility and evidence)