State of Kansas v. Danny D. Smith, 271 Kan. 666

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Danny D. Smith’s convictions for second-degree intentional murder and attempted second-degree murder. The court addressed the admissibility of testimony concerning an alleged payment to a prosecution witness, disclosure of impeachment evidence, lesser-included-offense instructions, mistrial and double-jeopardy issues, speedy trial, and sufficiency of the evidence. It found no reversible error.

Holdings

1. Wilson's testimony about statements by Smith's former defense counsel was not hearsay because it was admitted to explain Wilson's change in testimony and its effect on him, not to prove the truth of the alleged payment arrangement. Its admission therefore did not violate the Confrontation Clause and was not reversible error.
2. Smith was not entitled to a new trial because the record did not establish that Wilson had entered into a second agreement with the State before testifying at trial. Although such an agreement concerning dismissal or favorable treatment would have been material impeachment evidence requiring disclosure, no nondisclosure error was shown.
3. The district court properly refused to instruct the jury on unintentional second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Smith, could not reasonably support convictions on those lesser offenses.
4. The mistrial and subsequent retrial did not violate double jeopardy because the district court exercised sound discretion and found manifest necessity for terminating the first trial after learning that Smith's former defense counsel was allegedly involved in paying or attempting to influence a key witness.
5. Smith's statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights were not violated. The 180-day statutory period applied because a federal detainer meant he was not being held solely on the state charges, and the delay attributable to consideration of his recusal motion was reasonable. The less-than-four-month post-mistrial delay was not presumptively prejudicial under the constitutional test.
6. Sufficient evidence supported Smith's convictions because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational factfinder could have found Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court would not reweigh evidence or reassess Wilson's credibility.

Questions Presented

1. Whether testimony concerning statements by Smith's former defense counsel about paying Wilson to change his testimony was inadmissible hearsay or violated Smith's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing instructions on unintentional second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.
3. Whether the declaration of a mistrial violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
4. Whether the State failed to disclose a material agreement with Wilson concerning favorable treatment on cocaine charges, requiring a new trial.
5. Whether Smith's statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated.
6. Whether sufficient evidence supported Smith's convictions.

Disposition

affirmed