State v. White

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether excluding White's expert testimony, failing to instruct the jury on mental disease or defect, and instructing the jury that mental disease or defect was not an absolute defense violated his due process right to present his defense.
2. Whether K.S.A. 22-3220 unconstitutionally abrogates the insanity defense.
3. Whether the prosecutor's misstatements of voluntary-manslaughter law in closing argument denied White a fair trial.
4. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter.
5. Whether instructions limiting consideration of voluntary manslaughter until after the jury failed to agree on first-degree murder violated due process.
6. Whether cumulative error substantially prejudiced White and denied him a fair trial.

Holdings

1. The district court violated White's fundamental right to a fair trial by excluding expert testimony that was integral to his theory that mental disease or defect prevented him from forming the required intent and premeditation. Because the proffered testimony made the required connection between White's mental disease or defect and his conduct without using specific 'magic words,' the testimony was admissible and the court also erred by refusing to instruct the jury on mental disease or defect.
2. K.S.A. 22-3220 does not violate due process by eliminating insanity as a separate defense and limiting mental-disease-or-defect evidence to whether the defendant possessed the mental state required for the charged offense.
3. The court did not decide whether the prosecutor's misstatement actually denied White a fair trial because the issue was unnecessary to the reversal. The court observed that the prosecutor misstated the law by suggesting voluntary manslaughter required no intent, but the district court corrected the error by reminding the jury that all three charged homicide offenses required an intentional killing.
4. The district court did not err in refusing a heat-of-passion or sudden-quarrel voluntary-manslaughter instruction because the evidence did not establish adequate provocation that would reasonably support that lesser offense.
5. The jury instructions directing consideration of lesser offenses after failure to agree on first-degree murder did not violate due process and were not erroneous.
6. The cumulative-error issue was moot because the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Key quotations

Factual background

White shot his son-in-law, Aaron Ruboyianes, three times inside a Wal-Mart after the termination of White's guardianship over his grandson. White claimed he did not remember planning or carrying out the shooting and maintained that his mental condition and overwhelming emotional state affected his ability to form the required intent and premeditation. His psychologist diagnosed major depression and would have testified that White's conduct was consistent with acting under a mental disease or defect, but the district court excluded the testimony because she would not expressly state that the disease or defect caused White to lack the required mental state.

Procedural history

A jury convicted White of first-degree premeditated murder after the district court excluded his psychologist's testimony concerning mental disease or defect and did not instruct the jury on that defense. The district court sentenced him to a hard 25 life sentence. The Supreme Court of Kansas reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, while addressing additional issues for guidance because they could arise on retrial.

Remand instructions

Remanded for a new trial. On retrial, the defense should be permitted to present the proffered mental-disease-or-defect expert testimony and the jury should be instructed on that theory if supported by the evidence.