State v. Smith-Parker
301 Kan. 132
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Two consolidated prosecutions against Willie Smith-Parker: June 13, 2009 burglary/homicide of Alfred Mack (charged with first-degree premeditated murder, felony murder, aggravated burglary, theft) and June 19, 2009 fatal shooting of Justin Letourneau (charged with second-degree murder, aggravated assault, firearm possession).
- Ballistics linked a .22 shell at Mack’s scene to a .22 shell in the car where Letourneau was shot; stolen property from the burglary was recovered in locations connected to persons in the Letourneau matter.
- At trial the jury convicted Smith-Parker of first-degree premeditated murder of Mack (and related counts) and second-degree murder of Letourneau; acquitted on two aggravated burglary counts.
- Key trial events: court consolidated the cases over initial defense objections; the trial court excluded an out-of-court statement made by Letourneau to a witness; a problematic first-degree murder instruction was given; a juror (N.B.) was replaced during deliberations for language difficulties but jurors were not expressly instructed to restart deliberations; post-verdict N.B. alleged he was removed for his votes, and the court denied defense motions to recall jurors for live testimony.
- The Kansas Supreme Court found multiple trial errors and reversed all convictions under the cumulative-error doctrine, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Smith-Parker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of premeditation for Mack’s murder | Evidence (ballistics, stolen property, witnesses placing defendant with items and guns) supports premeditation and aiding/abetting liability | Circumstantial proof of premeditation was insufficient; identity of shooter and intent not proved beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Evidence sufficient for jury to infer premeditation and aiding/abetting liability (conviction could be supported) |
| Consolidation of the two cases | Consolidation proper under K.S.A. 22-3202(1): crimes connected (ballistics, common actors, stolen property, timeline) | Consolidation prejudiced defendant; crimes not of same/ similar character nor same transaction; risk of other-crimes prejudice | Court: One statutory basis (connected transactions/common scheme via ballistics and interlocking evidence) satisfied; consolidation not an abuse of discretion |
| Exclusion of Letourneau’s out-of-court statement to witness | Statement raised Crawford/Confrontation concerns; inadmissible hearsay without live declarant or exception | Statement offered to show declarant’s state of mind (not truth) and was admissible under hearsay/state-of-mind principles | Court: Exclusion was error—the statement should have been analyzed under hearsay/state-of-mind exception, not barred by Crawford |
| Jury handling and post-trial juror issues (replacement & recall) | Replacement was stipulated and proper; no prejudice; no need to recall jurors post-trial | Removing juror for language pretextual; court erred by not instructing jury to restart deliberations and by denying motion to recall jurors for live testimony about alleged misconduct | Court: Multiple errors—failed to instruct jurors to begin deliberations anew after replacement; denial to recall at least N.B. and presiding juror was error (post-trial factual contradiction required live testimony). Combined with other errors, reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements unless declarant testifies or defendant had prior cross-examination opportunity)
- State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131 (2014) (aiding and abetting and acting as principal are not alternative means of committing murder)
- State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555 (2013) (standards for joinder/consolidation and limits on permissible bases)
- State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842 (2010) (statements offered to show declarant’s state of mind are not hearsay on truth-of-matter theory)
- State v. Cheek, 262 Kan. 91 (1997) (alternate juror substitution after deliberations requires instruction to begin deliberations anew)
- State v. Lovelace, 227 Kan. 348 (1980) (historical treatment of mandatory wording in reasonable-doubt instructions; court overruled portions as to compulsory language)
- State v. Magallanez, 290 Kan. 906 (2010) (cumulative-error framework requiring reversal when aggregated errors substantially prejudice defendant)
- State v. Brown, 299 Kan. 1021 (2014) (discussion of aiding instruction issues)