State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Paul Drayton’s convictions for first-degree murder and felony theft. The court held that the admission of testimony concerning Drayton’s interview, including improper opinion testimony regarding his credibility or guilt, did not require reversal because any error was harmless. The court reversed the assessment of $7,110 in attorney fees because the district court essentially found that Drayton lacked the financial ability to pay.

Holdings

1. The issue was not preserved because Drayton failed to object when the challenged testimony was introduced. Even if preserved, the testimony did not violate the motion in limine and caused no substantial prejudice.
2. Testimony by a police detective that an innocent or uninvolved person would have responded differently during questioning is inadmissible as a matter of law because it impermissibly expresses an opinion on the defendant's credibility or guilt. The error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The State violated Doyle v. Ohio by eliciting testimony twice concerning Drayton's post-Miranda invocation of his right to silence. The prosecutor's closing argument, however, did not violate Doyle because it addressed Drayton's inconsistent statements rather than his invocation of silence. The Doyle error was harmless and did not require reversal.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support the theft conviction even though the jury could have found that Mayberry was dead when the van was taken.
5. A sentencing court must explicitly consider the defendant's financial resources and the burden of payment when determining the amount and method of BIDS reimbursement. A defendant who is unlikely to be able to pay may not be ordered to pay counsel expenses. Because the district court found that Drayton was unlikely to have the ability to pay but assessed the full $7,110 without meaningful consideration, the attorney-fee assessment was reversed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State violated a motion in limine by introducing testimony suggesting that Drayton was incarcerated when detectives interviewed him.
2. Whether the district court committed reversible error by admitting a detective's opinion that an innocent person would have responded differently during police questioning.
3. Whether the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by eliciting testimony concerning Drayton's post-Miranda invocation of his right to silence and by using that invocation to impeach him in closing argument.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the theft conviction when the State could not establish that Mayberry was alive when the van was taken.
5. Whether the district court erred by assessing BIDS attorney fees when it found that Drayton was unlikely to have the financial ability to pay.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded