State v. Thomas
302 Kan. 440
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Victim Christopher Dotson was found dead from a single gunshot to the head; his wallet and cell phone were missing. Cell records showed extensive August 22 communications between Dotson and Eddie Thomas, with the last call at 10:08 p.m.
- Thomas voluntarily met detectives, initially minimized contact, then (before suppression) admitted visiting Dotson, owning a .40 Ruger, shooting Dotson, and taking his wallet. The trial court later suppressed parts of that interview as violative of Miranda.
- Police obtained a warrant to search the residence of Thomas’ girlfriend; the warrant affidavit included both lawfully and unlawfully obtained statements. Items seized included a blood‑stained white t‑shirt and jean shorts and a receipt showing Thomas purchased a Ruger P94.
- At trial the State presented fingerprint, DNA, clothing, phone‑record, and other evidence; the jury convicted Thomas of aggravated robbery and first‑degree murder. The jury could not unanimously agree whether the murder was premeditated or felony murder but was unanimous on the single crime of first‑degree murder.
- Thomas appealed, raising: (1) instruction/ unanimity error treating premeditated and felony murder as alternative means; (2) prosecutor’s purported election at closing to pursue only felony‑murder; and (3) denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized under the warrant that relied in part on his un‑Mirandized statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felony murder and premeditated murder are separate crimes such that jury unanimity on means is required | State: K.S.A. 21‑3401 provides alternative theories of one crime (first‑degree murder) | Thomas: statutory changes and substantive differences show they are distinct crimes, so jury must unanimously agree on the specific theory | Court: Affirmed that they are alternative means under K.S.A. 21‑3401; unanimity required only as to guilt of the single crime, not the alternative means, provided evidence supports each means |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument can “elect” a single alternative means and bar jury reliance on the other instructed theory | State: prosecutor may argue evidence as he sees fit but jury gets the law from the court | Thomas: prosecutor’s election to proceed solely on felony murder precluded jury reliance on premeditation | Held: Prosecutor cannot unilaterally change the law the jury must apply; the judge’s alternative‑means instruction controls, so the jury could rely on either or both theories |
| Whether items seized under the search warrant must be suppressed because the warrant affidavit relied on un‑Mirandized statements | State: The affidavit contained sufficient lawfully obtained information independent of suppressed statements | Thomas: inclusion of un‑Mirandized confessions in the affidavit invalidated probable cause for the warrant | Held: Even excluding the un‑Mirandized statements, the affidavit contained sufficient lawful information to provide probable cause; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Whether use of un‑Mirandized statements in the affidavit violates the Fifth Amendment such that suppression is required | State: Patane/Phillips authority supports that physical evidence derived from voluntary statements need not be suppressed | Thomas: Fifth Amendment prohibits use of un‑Mirandized statements to obtain a warrant | Held: Court did not decide the Miranda‑in‑affidavit question definitively because outcome was the same on sufficiency grounds; any error would be harmless when lawful facts alone supported probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCowan, 226 Kan. 752 (1979) (first‑degree murder statute supplies alternative methods of proving deliberation/premeditation)
- State v. Morton, 277 Kan. 575 (2004) (verdict unanimous as to guilt of first‑degree murder is sufficient even if jurors disagree on which alternative means they relied upon)
- State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (1994) (statutory unanimity applies to the single crime charged; unanimity not required as to alternative means if each is supported by substantial evidence)
- State v. Fisher, 283 Kan. 272 (2007) (when affidavit contains both lawful and unlawful information, ask whether lawful information alone supports probable cause)
- State v. Powell, 299 Kan. 690 (2014) (probable cause review asks whether affidavit gave magistrate a substantial basis to conclude there was a fair probability evidence would be found)
- Patane v. United States, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) (physical evidence that is the fruit of a voluntary but un‑Mirandized statement may not require suppression under the Fifth Amendment)
- United States v. Phillips, 468 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2006) (applying Patane to hold physical evidence derived from a voluntary, un‑Mirandized statement need not be suppressed)