State v. Odom

Summary

The Kansas Court of Appeals held that K.S.A. 21-6301(a)(2), which concerns possessing specified bladed or blunt weapons and instruments of like character, does not apply to firearms. The court reversed Odom's conviction for criminal use of a weapon because the jury instruction permitted conviction based on firearm possession and the State presented insufficient evidence of a weapon covered by that subsection. The court otherwise affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the proposed prospective-juror testimony and harmless error in the stipulation concerning Odom's prior felony status.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Odom's motion to permit Rebecca, a prospective juror who did not serve on the jury, to testify at a new-trial hearing. The affidavit was vague and speculative, did not identify the alleged speakers, and did not establish that any alleged misconduct involved an actual juror or substantially prejudiced Odom's right to a fair trial.
2. The parties' stipulation was legally inadequate because it established only that Odom had been released from imprisonment for a felony and had completed his sentence less than eight years earlier; it did not establish that he had been convicted of one of the specific felonies listed in K.S.A. 21-6304(a)(3). The error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. K.S.A. 21-6301(a)(2) does not apply to firearms. The phrase 'any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character' is limited to weapons of the same general character as the enumerated bladed and blunt weapons, and firearms are not within that category.
4. The jury instruction was clearly erroneous because it allowed conviction under K.S.A. 21-6301(a)(2) based on possession of a firearm, which the statute does not cover. Because the State presented no evidence that Odom possessed a weapon covered by subsection (a)(2), the evidence was also insufficient to support the conviction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Odom's motion to permit a prospective juror who did not serve on the jury to testify concerning alleged misconduct during voir dire.
2. Whether the parties' stipulation that Odom had been released from imprisonment for a felony and had completed his sentence less than eight years earlier sufficiently established the felony-status element of criminal possession of a weapon by a felon.
3. Whether K.S.A. 21-6301(a)(2) criminalizes possessing a firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another.
4. Whether the jury instruction permitting conviction under K.S.A. 21-6301(a)(2) based on possession of a firearm was clearly erroneous.
5. Whether sufficient evidence supported Odom's conviction for criminal use of a weapon under K.S.A. 21-6301(a)(2).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded