493 P.3d 951
Kan.2021Background
- Two people (Brenton Oliver and Betty Ann Holloman) were fatally shot after a confrontation between rival gang members at Holloman's home; Wimbley drove to the scene, exchanged threats, left, then returned with passengers from whom shots were fired.
- Eyewitness testimony was inconsistent about who fired; some witnesses placed Wimbley shooting, others said he did not have a gun; Wimbley asserted he merely gave friends a ride and did not knowingly join a criminal venture.
- Wimbley was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of felony murder and related firearm offenses; he was sentenced to consecutive life terms plus an additional term for firearm discharges.
- At trial Wimbley requested additional language be added to the aiding-and-abetting pattern instruction clarifying that mere presence/association is insufficient and that a defendant must willfully and knowingly join an unlawful venture; the court declined to add that exact language but gave the pattern instruction (including an optional sentence that mere presence/association is insufficient).
- On appeal Wimbley argued the court erred by refusing his requested modification; the State defended the instruction as a whole; the Supreme Court reviewed preservation, factual and legal appropriateness, and whether the instructions, read together, fairly stated the law.
- The Kansas Supreme Court held there was no error because the jury instructions, taken as a whole, adequately conveyed the required mental state and the insufficiency of mere association/presence to establish guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to add defendant's requested language to the aiding-and-abetting (PIK) instruction | State: No error — the instructions as given, read together, properly and fairly stated the law and conveyed required mental state | Wimbley: The court should have added explicit language that mere presence is insufficient and that guilt requires willful, knowing participation in an unlawful venture | Court: Denial was not error — pattern instruction (plus optional sentence included) adequately informed jury of required intent and that mere association/presence is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Llamas, 298 Kan. 246 (2013) (held pattern aiding-and-abetting instruction without expanded "mere association" language did not mislead jury where instructions as a whole supported defense)
- State v. Liles, 313 Kan. 772 (2021) (explains requested instruction modifications must be evaluated in context; instructions considered as a whole)
- State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532 (2010) (acknowledged "willfully and knowingly associate" language states Kansas law and is often better practice to include)
- State v. Potts, 304 Kan. 687 (2016) (refused to require added statutory definition of "intentional" where instruction as a whole adequately conveyed requisite intent)
- State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176 (2014) (encouraged adding "mere association" language but held omission is not reversible error when instructions fairly state the law)
- State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (sets multi-step framework for reviewing jury instruction errors)