State v. Robinson, 113684

Background

In Dec. 2012 Troy Robinson met O.S.B. via an online dating site, went to her apartment, and later admitted to killing her; coroner found blunt-force injuries, cord marks, and multiple stab wounds.
Robinson confessed in varied statements, admitting sexual activity and describing both blunt-force and stabbing injuries; he also admitted taking the victim’s property and leaving with items in bags.
The State charged Robinson with premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated burglary (presence of a human being required), and misdemeanor theft; a jury convicted on all counts.
After conviction the State announced it would seek a mandatory "hard 50" life term under amended K.S.A. 21-6620; Robinson contested notice adequacy and the sentencing procedures (ex post facto and voir dire limitations).
Robinson appealed, raising (1) exclusion of evidence about the victim’s other online contacts, (2) alleged prosecutorial errors during closing, (3) sufficiency of aggravated burglary evidence (whether victim was alive when intent to steal formed and whether entry/remaining was without authority), (4) limits on voir dire about mitigation, and (5) adequacy/retroactivity of hard-50 notice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Robinson)	Held
Exclusion of victim's other online postings	Evidence irrelevant to elements; intrusive to victim privacy	Postings showed victim’s willingness to have sex on first dates and undermined premeditation theory	Exclusion affirmed — evidence not material to issues before jury; not probative of premeditation
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Arguments were fair inferences from evidence ("strangling," timeline showing premeditation, rhetorical devices)	Misstated evidence and law; inflammatory sarcasm ("Santa Claus")	No reversible error — statements within permissible bounds and, overall, did not prejudice defendant
Sufficiency of aggravated burglary evidence (human being present; authority to remain)	Evidence supported finding Robinson formed intent to steal while victim still alive; thus aggravated burglary proven	No proof victim withdrew consent; lacking evidence defendant remained without authority — statute requires living person and unauthorized presence	Conviction affirmed — jury could rationally find victim was alive when intent to steal formed; court did not address withdrawal-of-consent argument fully (concurring/dissent disagrees)
Limits on voir dire about mitigation/sentencing-phase questioning	Court may limit case-specific mitigation voir dire; no constitutional right to case-specific mitigation questioning in noncapital cases	Needed to probe juror bias on specific mitigating factors (mental illness, emotional disturbance) to assure impartial sentencing jury	Limitation affirmed — trial court acted within discretion; no constitutional right to case-specific mitigation questioning in noncapital cases
Adequacy and timing of notice to seek hard-50 sentence	Notice was provided pretrial (plea letter, court letter) and renewed post-verdict as statute permits; continuance granted so defense could prepare	Statute requires reasonable notice; State’s ambiguous statements deprived defendant of timely, useful opportunity to prepare and violated ex post facto to apply amended statute retroactively	Notice and retroactive application upheld — State’s oral and written communications were reasonable notice; retroactivity of 2013 amendment previously upheld by this court (State v. Bernhardt)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803 (2010) (standards for relevancy: probative vs. material)
State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176 (2014) (materiality requires tending to establish a fact at issue)
State v. White, 279 Kan. 326 (2005) (exclusion of evidence integral to defense reviewed de novo)
State v. Gilbert, 272 Kan. 209 (2001) (limits on probing victim character when irrelevant to disputed elements)
State v. Jones, 279 Kan. 395 (2005) (distinguishing intent from premeditation)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury; led to statutory changes)
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) (in capital cases jurors who would automatically impose death are disqualifying)
State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460 (2016) (retroactive application of 2013 amendment to K.S.A. 21-6620 does not violate Ex Post Facto Clause)
Brown v. State, 198 Kan. 345 (1967) (oral notice of intent to seek sentence enhancement can be sufficient)
State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 156 (1992) (statutory written notice at arraignment found constitutionally adequate)