State v. Soto
299 Kan. 102
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Defendant Rogelio Soto (age 16 at offense) was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder for the stabbing death of Arturo Moreno, Jr.; the jury found guilt but the judge later imposed a "hard 50" life sentence (no parole for 50 years).
- Facts: Soto attended Moreno’s apartment with gang-affiliated friends (Lopers/Sureños), a fight ensued or was followed by an attack; Moreno suffered 79 stab wounds and bled to death; blood and forensic links tied Soto and companions to the scene and items disposed in a trash bag were recovered.
- Co-defendant Castro pled guilty to aiding a felon and testified against Soto; forensic and testimonial evidence supported Soto’s presence, bloody clothing/shoes, and possible use of multiple knives.
- Soto raised trial errors on appeal: claimed denial of unanimous jury verdict, erroneous aiding-and-abetting jury instruction, and improper admission of gruesome autopsy photos; the court rejected these claims and affirmed the conviction.
- Soto additionally challenged the sentencing procedure: he argued Kansas’ ‘‘hard 50’’ statutory process (K.S.A. 21-4635) is unconstitutional under Alleyne because a judge—rather than a jury—found aggravating facts by a preponderance of the evidence to impose the increased mandatory minimum; the court agreed and vacated the hard 50 sentence, remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Soto's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury unanimity based on alternative means / aiding-and-abetting instruction | Instruction created alternative-means problem (principal vs aider/abettor) and evidence insufficient for either theory | Aiding-and-abetting does not create a separate material element; evidence sufficed to convict as principal or aider/abettor | Rejected Soto; instruction lawful and evidence sufficient under standard review (affirmed conviction) |
| Multiple-acts / unanimity instruction | State presented multiple acts; court failed to require jury unanimity on specific act | Only one killing occurred; alleged acts did not each satisfy all elements to create multiple-acts issue | Not a multiple-acts case; no unanimity instruction required (affirmed) |
| Aiding-and-abetting instruction language | Instruction ambiguous (“a crime” -> “the crime”) could allow conviction for a different crime than aided | PIK Crim. 3d 54.05 is correct statement of law; no persuasive reason to overturn precedent | No clear error; instruction upheld (affirmed) |
| Constitutionality of Kansas hard 50 sentencing (Alleyne issue) | K.S.A. 21-4635 permits judge to find aggravating circumstances by preponderance to trigger increased mandatory minimum — violates Sixth Amendment post-Alleyne | State contended Alleyne inapplicable or that judicial factfinding only informs sentencing discretion; also argued statute prescribes life so no mandatory minimum | Court holds K.S.A. 21-4635 unconstitutional under Alleyne: aggravating facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; Soto’s hard 50 sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (statute increasing sentence based on judge-found facts violates Sixth Amendment when it increases maximum)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (aggravating factors that expose defendant to greater punishment must be found by a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (judge may not enhance sentence beyond range authorized by jury verdict without jury-found facts)
- McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (distinguished pre-Apprendi; treated certain sentencing facts as sentencing factors)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (reaffirmed McMillan pre-Alleyne on mandatory-minimum finding)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error framework for omitted elements)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (Apprendi-type omissions may be reviewed for harmless error)
- State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131 (aiding-and-abetting statute does not add material elements; extends liability)
- State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (applied harmless-error test to omitted element under Apprendi framework)