Wilson v. State
340 P.3d 1213
Kan. Ct. App.2014Background
- Kirk Wilson was convicted in 2001 of first‑degree premeditated murder based primarily on eyewitness John Goodpasture and testimony from Wilson’s then-wife Kim; Wilson was sentenced to life with parole ineligibility for 25 years.
- Goodpasture’s statements to investigators changed repeatedly over months; some contemporaneous police reports and witnesses suggested Boldridge was alive after the date Goodpasture said the murder occurred.
- Wilson’s trial counsel, Michael Waite, introduced some impeachment of Goodpasture (plea deal, certain letters) but did not present (a) police reports and witnesses indicating a later timeline, (b) two jail letters from Goodpasture that contradicted his later statements, or (c) transcripts/tapes of covertly recorded conversations suggesting Wilson did not recognize Lisa Boldridge.
- At a 2013 evidentiary hearing on Wilson’s K.S.A. 60‑1507 habeas petition, an expert (trial‑level defense attorney Kurt Kerns) testified Waite’s investigation and trial strategy were inadequate; Waite was unavailable to testify (suspended and deceased).
- The district court found Waite’s performance constitutionally deficient under Strickland and that the failures prejudiced Wilson; it ordered a new trial. The State appealed; the appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson) | Defendant's Argument (State/Waite) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient under Strickland | Waite failed to investigate and present critical impeachment and exculpatory evidence (police reports, taped conversations, certain letters) and failed to adequately cross‑examine the only eyewitness | Waite’s omissions were strategic choices or the evidence would have been inadmissible or cumulative; absent Waite’s testimony, conduct should be presumed reasonable | Counsel was constitutionally deficient: failures reflected either lack of investigation or unreasonable strategy (affirmed) |
| Whether counsel’s cross‑examination of Goodpasture was adequate | Cross failed to probe numerous significant inconsistencies and omissions in Goodpasture’s multiple statements, undermining the only eyewitness’s credibility | Trial counsel did cross‑examine and impeached Goodpasture on plea deal and some inconsistencies; characterization of cross as “vigorous” on direct appeal | Cross‑examination was inadequate for a minimum competent defense given importance of Goodpasture’s testimony; performance prong met |
| Whether excluded evidence (taped conversations, police reports, letters) was admissible/strategic to present | Transcripts of conversations were admissible (speaker present for cross) and would have impeached Goodpasture; police reports/witnesses showing Boldridge alive later would have undermined timeline; certain letters were non‑cumulative impeachment | State argued hearsay/admissibility issues, cumulative nature, or strategic reasons to avoid introducing evidence that might also implicate Wilson | Court found transcripts admissible under exception (K.S.A. 60‑460), police reports were available and should have been investigated, and at least one Goodpasture letter (Sept. 20) was non‑cumulative and should have been offered |
| Whether counsel’s deficiencies prejudiced the outcome (Strickland prejudice) | Combined failures to impeach/destroy credibility of sole eyewitness created reasonable probability of a different verdict | State relied on jury hearing some impeachment and physical/autopsy evidence, arguing no reasonable probability of different outcome | Prejudice shown: cumulative effect of failures undermined confidence in verdict; new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑part ineffective assistance test)
- In re Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 295 Kan. 10 (counsel ineffective where available evidence contradicting State went unpresented)
- State v. Wilson, 281 Kan. 277 (direct appeal summary of trial evidence)
- Mattox v. State, 293 Kan. 723 (Strickland standards applied in Kansas)
- Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828 (discussion of counsel’s role in adversarial process)
- Bledsoe v. State, 283 Kan. 81 (strategy decisions reviewable; strategy itself must be reasonable)