State v. Verser, 299 Kan. 776

Victim Olivia Anaekwe was shot and killed in March 2009; her infant with defendant Dominic Verser was present in the car. Verser was later arrested and tried for first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm.
Neighbors heard a commotion and a loud bang; a spent .223 cartridge was recovered beneath the victim; ballistics suggested a Kel-Tec-type firearm. Verser’s home contained a live .223 round and a Kel-Tec manual.
Multiple relatives and neighbors testified implicating Verser (including admissions, a wrapped object that felt like a gun, and Verser seen with blood on his face). Verser fled and was found six months later.
A late-discovered witness, Michael Cox, testified inconsistently and ultimately admitted fabricating his testimony; defense cross-examination exposed the fabrication and defense declined a mistrial.
The court admitted testimony about a prior March 3 incident (Anaekwe calling 911 to retrieve the baby from Verser’s residence) without conducting a full K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-455 analysis.
During trial the judge misstated the oral reasonable-doubt instruction (used “any” instead of the written jury instruction’s “each”), and during deliberations the jury asked to see/listen to several witnesses’ police statements; the judge answered that none of those statements or recordings had been admitted, but did not read the answer aloud in open court with the defendant physically present.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cox’s admitted fabrication required a mistrial	State: denial of mistrial proper; credibility issue for jury	Verser: perjured testimony was structural error requiring mistrial	Denial not reviewable because defense invited the error by waiving mistrial after consultation; no reversible error shown
Admission of prior dispute (K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-455)	State: evidence relevant to motive/context; admissible	Verser: court failed to apply 60-455 and admit improper propensity evidence	Even if court erred by not applying 60-455, any error was harmless beyond reasonable probability given overwhelming evidence
Oral reasonable-doubt instruction misstated (“any” vs. “each”)	State: harmless; written instruction correct	Verser: misstatement could reduce prosecution’s burden	Court affirmed; prior precedent permits this variance, and written instruction with correct language was sent to jury
Court’s procedure answering jury question outside defendant’s presence	State: response merely said statements/recordings were not admitted; harmless	Verser: statutory and constitutional right to be present and public trial violated because answer not read in open court with him present	Failure to read answer aloud in open court was statutory/constitutional error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (answer was non-substantive and case against Verser was strong)

State v. Peppers, 294 Kan. 377 (discusses invited error doctrine)
State v. Hill, 271 Kan. 929 (structural-error doctrine)
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (catalogue of structural errors is narrow)
State v. Hargrove, 48 Kan. App. 2d 522 (distinguishing invited error from inadvertent error in jury-instruction context)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (value of confrontation and cross-examination)
State v. Dean, 298 Kan. 1023 (framework for 60-455 analysis)
State v. Preston, 294 Kan. 27 (harmless-error standard for 60-455 violations)
State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 (party benefiting from nonconstitutional error must show no reasonable probability of different outcome)
State v. King, 297 Kan. 955 (defendant must be present when jury questions answered)
State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (factors for assessing harmlessness of ex parte jury communications)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (federal harmless-error standard articulated)