Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Adam J. Longoria's convictions and sentences for capital murder, vehicle burglary, and theft. The court rejected challenges concerning venue, lesser-included-offense instructions, admission of photographs and arrest video, prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, and sufficiency of the evidence. The opinion discusses presumed and actual prejudice from pretrial publicity, evidentiary standards, jury instructions, and appellate standards of review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether pervasive pretrial publicity required a change of venue under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments or K.S.A. 22-2616(1).
- Whether the trial court clearly erred by failing to instruct on felony murder as a lesser included offense of capital murder.
- Whether the trial court clearly erred by failing to instruct on unintentional but reckless second-degree murder.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a before-death photograph of the victim.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a video depicting Longoria's arrest at gunpoint and in handcuffs.
- Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct through sarcasm and other comments during rebuttal argument.
- Whether alleged juror misconduct required a mistrial, juror removal, or new trial.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported the capital-murder convictions, particularly the underlying aggravated-sodomy and attempted-rape offenses.
Holdings
- The extensive and largely factual pretrial publicity did not establish presumed prejudice requiring a change of venue because Longoria failed to show that publicity displaced the judicial process or created a lynch-mob mentality.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a venue transfer under K.S.A. 22-2616(1).
- A defendant must renew a change-of-venue motion after voir dire to preserve an actual-prejudice claim based on community-wide sentiment revealed during jury selection, or explain why the issue should be considered for the first time on appeal.
- Longoria was not entitled to a new trial based on the failure to instruct on felony murder because K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5402(d) excludes felony murder as a lesser included offense of capital murder and applies retroactively.
- The failure to instruct on unintentional but reckless second-degree murder was not clearly erroneous because Longoria failed to firmly convince the court that the jury would have reached a different verdict.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a before-death photograph of A.D.
- The arrest video did not trigger automatic reversal and was properly admitted because its probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact.
- The prosecutor did not commit misconduct by using sarcasm in rebuttal because the comments remained tied to the evidence and defense arguments and did not deprive Longoria of a fair trial.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to remove Juror M or grant a new trial based on alleged outside conversations.
- Substantial circumstantial evidence supported the capital-murder convictions, including the aggravated-sodomy and attempted-rape predicates.
Key quotations
“Defendants face a high burden under the Skilling test—generally a defendant can obtain a change of venue only upon showing that publicity has displaced the judicial process entirely or that the courtroom proceedings more resemble a circus or a lynch mob.” (301 Kan. 489, Syl. ¶ 4)
“The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not demand juror ignorance, and a party does not establish presumed prejudice by simply proving there was extensive media coverage.” (301 Kan. 489, Syl. ¶ 7)
“Prosecutors may use sarcasm as an occasional rhetorical device. But we caution that it cannot be used in ways that distract the jury from its charge, demean the adversarial trial process, or become unprofessional to the point of jeopardizing a verdict.” (301 Kan. 489, Syl. ¶ 26)
“Allegations of juror misconduct trigger a progressive two-step inquiry to determine if either a mistrial or new trial is warranted” (301 Kan. 489, 50)
Factual background
Fourteen-year-old A.D. disappeared after leaving her home late on August 21, 2010, and her burned remains were found near a Great Bend asphalt plant. Evidence connected Longoria to A.D., including extensive text messages, his vehicle's location, gasoline, DNA containing his semen and bodily fluids from A.D., duct-tape residue, and efforts to conceal evidence and create an alibi. The jury convicted Longoria of capital murder based on attempted rape, criminal sodomy, and aggravated criminal sodomy, as well as vehicle burglary and theft.
Procedural history
A Barton County jury convicted Longoria of three alternative counts of capital murder, vehicle burglary, and theft. The district court imposed consecutive sentences consisting of life imprisonment without parole for capital murder, 17 months for vehicle burglary, and 7 months for theft. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences.