State v. Sasser, 391 P.3d 698

Background

Shawn Sasser sent threatening texts to his ex-wife and her friend, drove to her apartment, knocked over her motorcycle, broke into the apartment, damaged a TV, and threatened a neighbor with a gun; he was charged with multiple offenses and convicted of burglary and felony criminal damage to property.
The burglary information alleged he entered the dwelling with intent to commit one of three felonies: first-degree murder, aggravated assault, or criminal threat; the jury was instructed using that language.
Before trial both parties submitted substantially identical proposed burglary instructions; at the instructions conference after evidence both sides agreed the instruction was appropriate and defense counsel did not object.
On appeal Sasser argued (1) invited error should not bar review of an alleged alternative-means/unanimity problem in the burglary instruction and (2) the felony criminal-damage conviction relied impermissibly on lay opinion testimony estimating repair costs for the motorcycle.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying invited error and upholding admission of lay witness Zuber’s $1,000–$1,500 damage estimate; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
The Kansas Supreme Court held invited error did not bar review (distinguishing cases where counsel affirmatively pursued instructions that expanded the charge), affirmed the burglary conviction because sufficient evidence supported intent to commit each listed felony, and (by majority) affirmed admission of Zuber’s lay damage estimate as within trial court discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the invited-error doctrine bars appellate review of the claimed alternative-means/unanimity error in the burglary instruction	State: invited error applies where defendant requested the instruction and failed to object	Sasser: requesting the pretrial instruction did not invite error because overbreadth could not be known until after evidence	Court: invited error did not apply—pretrial request that matched the charging document resembled acquiescence, not invitation
Whether the burglary instruction presented an alternative-means problem requiring reversal for lack of sufficient evidence as to one listed means	Sasser: insufficient evidence he intended to commit a criminal threat inside the dwelling	State: texts and conduct showed threats and intent to terrorize, supporting criminal-threat intent	Court: even assuming alternative means, substantial evidence supported intent to commit each listed felony (including criminal threat); burglary conviction affirmed
Whether lay witness Zuber’s testimony estimating repair cost ($1,000–$1,500) was admissible under K.S.A. 60-456(a)	Sasser: estimate required specialized knowledge and should have been expert testimony; its admission was the only support for felony-level damage	State: Zuber’s experience with motorcycles and inspection of the damage supported a rationally based lay opinion helpful to the jury	Court (majority): trial court did not abuse discretion admitting lay estimate; even if excluded, photographs (not in record) could support verdict; felony conviction affirmed
Whether reversal is required if lay estimate was sole evidence of $1,000 threshold	Sasser: yes—would require reversing felony damage count	State: record included photographs; appellant failed to include them, so cannot show insufficiency on appeal	Court: appellant failed to include photos in record; cannot show insufficiency; no reversal (concurring/dissent would reverse on evidentiary grounds)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Verser, 299 Kan. 776 (doctrine of invited error generally bars complaining about a ruling one caused)
State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (alternative-means unanimity principle and requirement of substantial evidence for each means)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (unanimity concern where jury instructions list multiple means; reversal required if verdict may rest on invalid ground)
State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (clarifies unanimity vs. means; jury need not be unanimous on means if each is supported)
State v. Jones, 247 Kan. 537 (value of vehicle repair damage measured by cost of replacement parts plus installation)