State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969

Soto appeals his jury trial convictions for aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder and related drug offenses, challenging the denial of his motion for new trial based on the State’s failure to disclose a plea agreement with codefendant Layne and the absence of a lesser included second-degree murder instruction.
Steven Freel was murdered on December 6, 2011; Layne, who worked for Soto, acted as the shooter, while Soto allegedly supplied the handgun and directed Layne not to involve Soto’s property.
Evidence at trial connected Layne and Soto to the killing through Layne’s statements, Layne’s car and Layne’s tested shell casings linking to the weapon used, and recovered drugs at Soto’s residence.
Layne testified in some form during pretrial/interrogation, and the State admitted Layne’s statements as declarations against interest; Layne later entered a plea agreement with the State during Soto’s trial, after which Soto sought a new trial.
The district court denied the new-trial motion; Layne later pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced after Soto’s conviction.
On appeal, Soto argues the failure to disclose the Layne plea agreement violated Brady and that the court erred by not instructing on intentional second-degree murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a Brady violation due to withholding Layne plea terms?	Soto contends the plea terms were favorable impeachment material and suppressed evidence.	The State argues the plea details were not material and did not affect Layne’s availability during trial.	No reversible error; disclosure was not material to the trial outcome.
Did defense invited error bar review of the second-degree instruction?	Soto did not affirmatively request or decline the second-degree instruction; error should be considered.	State relies on invited-error doctrine to preclude review;	Invited-error doctrine does not apply; proceedings allowed review of this issue.
Was the instruction on intentional second-degree murder clearly erroneous?	There was some evidence supporting second-degree intentional murder and Haberlein requires analysis.	The record lacked sufficient evidence to warrant the lesser instruction.	The district court’s failure to give the unrequested instruction was not clearly erroneous; evidence supported premeditation.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of favorable evidence)
State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 (2012) (Brady analysis and materiality standards in Kansas)
Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195 (2012) (test for clearly erroneous lesser-included instruction; Haberlein test)
State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (standard for determining whether lesser included instruction is warranted)
State v. Lopez, 299 Kan. 324 (2014) (premeditation requirement for aiding and abetting first-degree murder)