State v. Robinson, 270 P.3d 1183

Robinson was convicted of capital murder, rape, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and violation of a PFA order in Kansas.
The 14-year-old victim, C.B., was nine months pregnant with Robinson’s child at the time of her murder.
The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the death penalty; the district court sentenced Robinson to life imprisonment without parole plus 247 months.
Robinson challenged multiple trial rulings on appeal, including suppression of Internet-search evidence, suppression of custodial statements, hearsay admissibility under forfeiture by wrongdoing, admission of photographs, bias claims concerning a change of judge, and jury instructions on burden of proof.
Evidence showed Robinson and accomplices planned and executed C.B.’s murder after she became pregnant, with Gentry and Burnett participating and Robinson allegedly hiring them.
During pretrial and trial, the State introduced internet search data showing Robinson searched for how to kill a baby, how to have a miscarriage, and how to find a missing person.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing and warrant validity for Internet searches	Robinson lacked standing and the warrant was invalid due to broad or unsupported scope.	Robinson had a privacy interest; warrant was invalid and searches violated Fourth Amendment.	Robinson lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy; suppression denied.
voluntariness of custodial statements	Interrogation techniques coerced Robinson into confessing.	Statements were voluntary under totality of circumstances.	Statements were voluntary; suppression denied.
Admissibility of C.B.'s hearsay under forfeiture by wrongdoing	Statements were admissible under forfeiture by wrongdoing.	Statutory forfeiture by wrongdoing not a valid basis for admissibility; or evidence insufficient.	Forfeiture by wrongdoing was misapplied; statements admissible under KS.A. 60-460(d)(3) as non-testimonial.
Admissibility and prejudice of gruesome photographs	Photographs were probative and properly admitted to show manner and violent nature.	Photographs were gruesome and repetitious, causing undue prejudice.	Photographs were relevant and admissible; no abuse of discretion.
Identical offense doctrine and resentencing	Identical elements with a lesser offense require resentencing.	Doctrine applies to two offenses with identical elements; capital murder vs. first-degree murder with aiding and abetting.	Identical offense doctrine does not apply; no resentencing.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (forfeiture by wrongdoing requires unavailable declarant or interference with testimony)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (non-testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause scope)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation rights)
Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18 (2005) (totality of circumstances in voluntariness of confessions; coercion factors)
Stone, 291 Kan. 13 (2010) (affirmation of Swanigan approach; totality of circumstances in voluntariness)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule scope and fruit of the poisonous tree)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
Morlock, 218 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2009) (state burden to prove search legality; standing considerations)