State v. Roberts, 503 P.3d 227

Early morning Oct. 1, 2017, downtown Lawrence shooting left three dead and two wounded; video and scene evidence indicated two shooters.
Forensic recovery: six .40 cal casings (DNA matched Ahmad Rayton) and fifteen 9mm casings fired from a gun that matched a Glock owned by Roberts; Roberts’ DNA was not on casings.
Police later stopped a Kia driven by Roberts; officers seized a loaded Glock 26 on his hip but released the occupants after finding no basis to detain longer.
State charged Roberts with two counts of first-degree felony murder (victims Brown and Dean) predicated on intentional second-degree murder of Colwin Henderson, plus intentional second-degree murder of Henderson and attempted intentional second-degree murder of Tahzay Rayton.
Trial evidence included eyewitness accounts (conflicting), video analysis linking 9mm casings to Roberts’ gun, witness testimony that Roberts admitted shooting Henderson, and Roberts’ testimony claiming self-defense; jury convicted on all counts.
On appeal Roberts contended the court erred by not instructing felony murder with voluntary manslaughter as an alternative underlying felony, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove he intended to kill Henderson.

Issue	State's Argument	Roberts' Argument	Held
Whether court erred by failing to give felony-murder instructions listing voluntary manslaughter as an alternative underlying felony	The State: invited-error doctrine does not bar review; in any event, voluntary manslaughter could not be an underlying felony because State never charged it as an alternative	Roberts: jury could consider voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense on the Henderson count, so felony-murder instructions should have allowed voluntary manslaughter as an alternative underlying felony	No reversible error. Court held defense did not invite the error, but a felony-murder instruction based on voluntary manslaughter would be legally inappropriate because the State never charged it as an underlying felony; instructions were proper.
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Roberts intended to kill Henderson (element for all convictions)	The State: circumstantial evidence (motive, animosity, Roberts’ conduct and admissions, 9mm casings linked to his gun) permitted a rational jury to infer intent beyond a reasonable doubt	Roberts: evidence was weak; no direct forensic proof he shot victims; actions could be consistent with non-specific firing or self-defense; jury instructions created confusion	Affirmed. Reviewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could infer Roberts had the conscious objective to kill Henderson; sufficiency standard met.

State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307, 409 P.3d 1 (2018) (three-step framework for reviewing jury-instruction claims)
State v. Douglas, 313 Kan. 704, 490 P.3d 34 (2021) (explained application of invited-error doctrine to instruction requests)
State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689, 423 P.3d 506 (2018) (invited error bars appellate review when party induced the court to take the challenged action)
Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) (trial must be limited to charges in the indictment; court cannot submit uncharged theories)
State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (prosecutor is bound by the complaint and the theory pled)
State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3, 371 P.3d 836 (2016) (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction)
State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657, 414 P.3d 713 (2018) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)