State v. Story
334 P.3d 297
Kan.2014Background
- Kansas Supreme Court affirms a first-degree murder conviction of Tynisha Story.
- events: shooting of Lakeasha Ross at Bartley’s apartment; Story used Bartley’s keys to enter and shot Ross multiple times.
- gun linked to Story via a filed-off serial number; gun recovered at Chism’s house; ballistics matched.
- Story’s prior trial ended in a hung jury; second trial included testimony about the serial number and PIN use.
- the State argued school shootings illustrate premeditation; Story moved for heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction, which the court denied.
- the court applied harmless-error analysis to admitted serial-number evidence and PIN testimony; cumulative error claim rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence of a filed-off serial number | State | Story argues improper under 60-455 and misapplication | Harmless error; no reversal |
| Limiting instruction on inmate PIN evidence | State | Story contends must have limiting instruction | Harmless error; no reversal |
| Heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter instruction | State | Story asserts factual basis existed | Instruction not legally or factually appropriate; denied |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during closing about school shootings | State | Story claims inflaming jury | No prosecutorial misconduct; statements within wide latitude |
| Cumulative error | State | Story asserts cumulative prejudice | No reversible cumulative error; record viewed as a whole supports conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Preston, 294 Kan. 27, 272 P.3d 1275 (2012) (2012) (harmlessness standard for 60-455 rulings)
- State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) (2012) (harmlessness burden on state for evidentiary error)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (2011) ( Chapman/harmless error framework)
- State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 283 P.3d 202 (2012) (2012) (framework for evaluating lesser-included offenses)
- State v. Wade, 295 Kan. 916, 287 P.3d 237 (2012) (2012) (preservation and factual support for lesser offense instruction)
- State v. Johnson, 290 Kan. 1038, 236 P.3d 517 (2010) (2010) (objective test for heat-of-passion provocation)
- State v. Coop, 223 Kan. 302, 573 P.2d 1017 (1978) (1978) (definition of heat of passion; provocation standard)
- State v. Henderson, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1202, 96 P.3d 680 (2004) (2004) (use of rhetorical devices in closing arguments allowed within limits)
- State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 269 P.3d 1268 (2012) (2012) (prosecutorial closing argument standards)
- State v. Dull, 298 Kan. 832, 317 P.3d 104 (2014) (2014) (constitutional harmless error analysis applied to closing)