State v. Robinson, 417 P.3d 1087

On Dec. 8, 2014, two men (Roy Robinson and Derek Devine) entered Jakeeia Chambers' home; Chambers testified she did not invite them and they demanded TVs, money, and computers. No property was taken.
Chambers knew Robinson as an acquaintance of the resident (Steen); she did not know Devine. Robinson followed Chambers to her bedroom during the incident.
The State charged both men with aggravated burglary; later it reduced Devine's charge to misdemeanor criminal trespass, but kept felony aggravated burglary against Robinson.
Robinson moved pretrial to dismiss for selective prosecution; the district court denied the motion after a preliminary hearing and again posttrial, citing differences in role and Robinson’s extensive criminal history.
At trial Robinson argued (1) he was collecting a debt and (2) he was selectively prosecuted; the jury convicted him of aggravated burglary. Robinson appealed challenging selective-prosecution rulings, jury instructions on that defense, and sufficiency of evidence for entering without authority and intent to steal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether prosecution should be dismissed for selective prosecution	State singled out Robinson because it reduced Devine’s charge but not Robinson’s	Prosecution had non-arbitrary reasons: Robinson had a larger role and far worse criminal record	Denied — court found rational bases (greater role, prior record); no showing of arbitrary/invidious selection
Whether selective-prosecution claim should go to the jury	Robinson contends jury should consider/selective-prosecution evidence	Selective-prosecution is a legal/institutional defect for the judge to decide pretrial	Court erred in letting jury address it, but error harmless because claim is for judge and no impact shown on guilt
Sufficiency: entry without authority	Robinson implied consent or lawful purpose (debt collection)	Chambers testified she did not invite him in, entry followed a loud bang and no announcement	Evidence sufficient — jury could find entry without authority
Sufficiency: intent to commit theft on entry	Robinson argued intent was to collect a debt, not steal	Timing, lack of cars at home, unannounced entry, and demands for property supported theft intent	Evidence sufficient — circumstantial facts permitted finding of intent to steal

State ex rel. Murray v. Palmgren, 231 Kan. 524 (selective prosecution violates Equal Protection)
State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76 (elements needed to establish selective-prosecution defense)
State v. Weniger, 9 Kan. App. 2d 705 (selective-prosecution motion must be pretrial)
United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (selective-prosecution is legal question for judge)
United States v. Machorro-Xochicale, 840 F.3d 545 (jury does not decide selective-prosecution legal issue)
State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3 (distinction between judge-decided legal issues and jury-decided factual issues)
State v. Robinson, 306 Kan. 1012 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)