State v. Tague, 296 Kan. 993

Tague was convicted by jury of felony murder and aggravated robbery in Sedgwick County after events at a motel on Oct. 25, 2007; evidence showed two men and two women present, with a shooting and theft of money and drugs; Green identified Tague and Keith in photo lineups, though Keith later testified Pepper was his partner; Javier entered briefly for a drug deal but was not involved in the robbery; Maupin, Tague’s best friend, testified about Tague’s statements after the incident; autopsy and firearms testimony linked the crime to a single 9 mm gun; the trial court admitted autopsy photos and heard cross-examination on Maupin’s credibility; the court gave an aiding-and-abetting instruction and did not give lesser-included-offense instructions; appellate review centered on evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Hearsay evidence preservation and admissibility	Tague	Tague	Issue not properly preserved; no ruling on admissibility reached merits
Admissibility of Maupin's out-of-court statements	Tague	Tague	Waived; trial court’s basis not challenged on appeal
Autopsy photographs admissibility	Tague	Tague	Court did not abuse discretion; photographs relevant and not unduly prejudicial
Cross-examination about Maupin’s drug sales	Tague sought broader impeachment; drug-sale evidence relevant	Court limited scope to reduce prejudicial impact	Judge’s ruling within discretion; no abuse of discretion shown
Aiding and abetting jury instruction foreseeability	Tague contends lack of foreseeability instruction undermines felony-murder theory	Instruction appropriate; foreseeability not required here	Instruction legally appropriate; foreseeability not required

State v. Chanthaseng, 293 Kan. 140 (2011) (requires proffering concrete basis for admissibility of hearsay)
State v. Haislip, 237 Kan. 461 (1985) (hearsay grounds must be properly asserted)
State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 (2012) (only three exceptions to new-argument rule on appeal)
State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 (2009) (Rule 6.09 briefing limitations; not a vehicle for new issues)
State v. Sappington, 285 Kan. 176 (2007) (preservation and standard for evidentiary objections)
State v. Belote, 213 Kan. 291 (1973) (impeachment by drug-use evidence admissible in certain contexts)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 (2012) (clearly erroneous standard for jury instructions when not objected to originally)
State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624 (2004) (felony-murder foreseeability rule for aiding-and-abetting context)
State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (framework for analyzing jury instruction issues and preservation)