State v. Solis, 378 P.3d 532

Background

Victim Natasha Crump was found strangled to death in December 2006 at defendant Jose Solis' apartment; Solis' DNA and other forensic evidence linked him to the scene.
Solis had a history of a volatile relationship with Crump, including a March 2006 domestic-battery conviction and multiple incidents witnessed by coworkers; the State sought to admit prior-acts/relationship evidence under K.S.A. 60-455.
Two jury trials occurred: a 2008 jury hung; a 2010 retrial resulted in conviction for first-degree premeditated murder.
Before trial(s) the court excluded the March 2006 conviction but admitted December 2006 relationship evidence for limited purposes; at the second trial parties agreed prior rulings remained in effect and Solis did not contemporaneously object.
Defense waived some lesser-included instructions at the first trial; by the second trial the court gave intentional second-degree murder as a lesser included offense but did not sua sponte give reckless second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter instructions.
On appeal Solis challenged (1) preservation and admissibility of prior-acts evidence, (2) failure to give a K.S.A. 60-455 limiting instruction, (3) omission of certain lesser-included instructions, (4) a contested reasonable-doubt instruction, and (5) cumulative error. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Solis)	Held
Preservation of challenge to admission of prior-acts evidence	Objections must be contemporaneous at trial to preserve appellate review	Pretrial objections and limine rulings suffice; failure to renew should not bar review; due process implicated	Court: contemporaneous trial objection required under K.S.A. 60-404; Solis failed to preserve and no exception applied
Admissibility / limiting instruction for K.S.A. 60-455 evidence	Evidence of recent relationship discord and bruising admitted for motive/identity; limiting instruction not required sua sponte if not objected to at trial	Prior-bad-act evidence was propensity evidence; court should have given limiting instruction and evidence was more prejudicial than probative	Court: failure to give limiting instruction was error but, raised first on appeal, not "clearly erroneous" — not reversible because Solis failed to show a different verdict would have resulted
Lesser-included offense instructions (reckless 2nd-degree; involuntary manslaughter)	Court allowed intentional 2nd-degree instruction; no obligation to give reckless/unintentional instructions absent factual support	Reckless and involuntary manslaughter instructions should have been given (and K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5202(c) supports recklessness instruction)	Court: legally possible but factually unsupported here; Solis could not show a different verdict; 2015 statute inapplicable to 2006 crime; no reversible error
Reasonable-doubt instruction wording ("any" vs "each")	Instruction accurate enough; longstanding precedent finds "any" phrasing not erroneous	"Any" could be read to lower burden of proof and warrant reversal	Court: instruction not the preferred wording but not erroneous or clearly erroneous under controlling Kansas precedent; no reversal
Cumulative error / fair trial	N/A	Combined minor errors deprived Solis of a fair trial	Court: no cumulative prejudice; evidence against Solis was overwhelming; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. King, 288 Kan. 333 (court enforces contemporaneous-objection rule for evidentiary claims)
State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 (limiting instruction required when prior-act evidence is admitted for limited purposes)
State v. Goodson, 281 Kan. 913 (discusses unsettled law re: whether admission of propensity evidence implicates due process)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (harmless-error test applied to instructional and other errors)
State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (approves use of "any" in reasonable-doubt instruction as not erroneous)
State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (framework/standards for appellate review of jury-instruction issues)
State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113 (discusses legally appropriate lesser-included offenses)
State v. Lloyd, 299 Kan. 620 (strangulation as evidence supporting premeditation)