State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901

Background

On May 31, 2009, Scott Roeder fatally shot Dr. George Tiller at church and threatened two pursuing ushers; Roeder admitted planning the killing for years and testified he acted to stop future abortions.
Roeder was convicted by a jury of premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault; the district court imposed a "hard 50" (50‑year mandatory minimum) on the murder conviction.
Pretrial, Roeder sought a change of venue based on extensive local and national publicity and the long‑running community conflict over abortion; the district court denied the motion after voir dire.
Roeder sought to present a necessity defense and requested imperfect defense‑of‑others voluntary manslaughter and perfect defense‑of‑others instructions; the court excluded necessity and denied the lesser/perfect defense instructions.
Roeder challenged several evidentiary rulings (subpoenas, witness exclusions, proffers), alleged prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal argument, and claimed cumulative error.
On appeal the court affirmed the convictions but vacated the hard 50 sentence because Kansas’ statutory hard‑50 scheme violated the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Alleyne.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Roeder)	Held
Change of venue for pretrial publicity	Publicity did not prevent empaneling a fair jury; trial court followed careful voir dire procedures.	Publicity and local abortion controversy tainted community such that a fair trial was not possible.	Denied: court did not abuse discretion; jurors said they could be impartial and jury was empaneled without difficulty.
Admissibility / instruction on necessity defense	Necessity cannot justify criminalizing conduct to stop lawful abortions; prior Tilson precedent bars necessity here.	Necessity (choice of evils) available because Roeder sought to prevent imminent unlawful killings of fetuses.	Denied: even if necessity exists in some circumstances, facts here (non‑legal harm, lack of imminence, other legal alternatives) preclude the defense.
Lesser‑included imperfect defense‑of‑others (voluntary manslaughter) & right to present that defense	No evidence would support a claim of perfect defense‑of‑others (imminent unlawful force); evidence and law do not support the imperfect variant.	Roeder honestly believed killing was necessary to protect unborn persons; subjective belief alone suffices for imperfect defense instruction and right to present evidence.	Denied: statute requires the circumstances believed to exist would have supported a perfect defense under K.S.A. 21‑3211; here harm was not imminent and abortions are lawful—no instruction and exclusion of irrelevant corroborating witnesses upheld.
Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal closing argument	Most remarks were fair inferences from testimony and rebutted defense arguments; any improper remarks were harmless given overwhelming evidence.	Rebuttal appealed to passion, invoked community terror, and urged jurors to consider factors outside evidence.	No reversible error: comments largely within prosecutorial latitude or harmless beyond reasonable doubt given defendant's admissions and overwhelming evidence.
Failure to give second‑degree murder instruction	No factual basis for instantaneous killing; defendant’s long premeditation negates need for lesser instruction.	Requested instruction because conviction might be second‑degree rather than premeditated first‑degree.	Harmless if error: defendant testified to a 16‑year plan, establishing premeditation; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hard 50 sentence (sentencing procedure)	State applied statutory sentencing scheme requiring judge to find aggravating factors by preponderance to impose hard 50.	Judicial fact‑finding to increase mandatory minimum violates Sixth Amendment (Alleyne).	Vacated hard 50: Kansas’ K.S.A. 21‑4635 procedure unconstitutional because judge (not jury) found aggravators by preponderance; remanded for resentencing.

Key Cases Cited

Higgenbotham v. State, 271 Kan. 582 (explaining standards and factors for change of venue)
City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (refusing necessity defense for abortion‑clinic protester; harm must be legal)
Ordway v. State, 261 Kan. 776 (discussing subjective aspects of imperfect manslaughter and limits on psychotic‑delusion basis)
State v. White, 284 Kan. 333 (imminence requirement for imperfect defense‑of‑others)
State v. Qualls, 297 Kan. 61 (holding court must view evidence in light most favorable to defendant when assessing factual sufficiency for imperfect self‑defense instruction)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (harmless‑error test: no reasonable possibility error affected verdict)
State v. Soto, 299 Kan. 102 (holding Kansas hard‑50 scheme violates Sixth Amendment under Alleyne and vacating sentence)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (factors for evaluating presumed prejudice from pretrial publicity)