State v. Summers
272 P.3d 1
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Summers charged with first-degree murder; mistrial at first trial, convicted at second trial; life without parole for 25 years and lifetime postrelease supervision imposed; challenge to admissibility of statements to police at his father’s house; challenge to hearsay about victim’s statement that Homie would visit; challenge to prosecutor’s cross-examination question; postrelease supervision later vacated.
- Factual timeline: June 18, 2007, multiple calls between Summers and Salvador; Victim Salvador expected Homie that evening; Summers’ alibi and travel described (credit union, Aunt Alice’s apartment, day care); homicide by multiple gunshot wounds; shell casings found and linked to the same firearm.
- Interests of justice: appellate review of suppression ruling follows substantial-competent evidence standard and de novo custody analysis; hearsay challenged under 60-460(d)(3) and cross-examination challenged under prosecutorial misconduct standards.
- The State’s evidence included phone records, neighbor and wife testimonies, and physical shell-casing links; Summers moved to suppress interrogation statements, which the court denied; trial court admitted homie-related statements under a hearsay exception; a prosecutor’s improper cross-exam question was sustained; the court vacated lifetime postrelease supervision after noting lack of authority for such a term with an off-grid indeterminate life sentence.
- The conviction is affirmed. The sentence is affirmed in part and vacated in part (postrelease supervision).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Summers’ police-interview statements | Summers argues custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. | Court should suppress as custodial interrogation without warnings. | Miranda warnings not required; interview not custodial. |
| Admissibility of Salvador’s statements about Homie to wife and neighbor | Salvador’s statements are relevant hearsay under 60-460(d)(3). | Statements lack proper foundation or good faith. | Admissible under 60-460(d)(3) (hearsay exception). |
| Prosecutor’s cross-examination question about alibi route | Question admissible to test alibi. | Question improper and prejudicial. | Question improper but sustained objection; no reversal due to strong circumstantial case. |
| Lifetime postrelease supervision with off-grid life sentence | Court should impose postrelease supervision alongside life sentence. | Court lacks authority to order postrelease supervision with off-grid life sentence. | Vacate lifetime postrelease supervision; affirmed conviction and remainder of sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (Kan. 2010) (standard for reviewing suppression findings and de novo legal conclusions)
- State v. Morton, 286 Kan. 632, 186 P.3d 785 (2008) (Kan. 2008) (two-part Miranda custody analysis; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Cash, 293 Kan. 326, 263 P.3d 786 (2011) (Kan. 2011) (off-grid indeterminate life sentence; no authority for postrelease supervision)
- State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 264 P.3d 81 (2011) (Kan. 2011) (prosecutorial misconduct framework; factors for reversal)
- State v. Davis, 283 Kan. 569, 158 P.3d 317 (2006) (Kan. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for hearsay rulings)