State v. Soto

Summary

Domingo Soto appealed his Kansas convictions for aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder and drug offenses. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the State’s failure to disclose a codefendant’s plea agreement did not warrant a new trial because the agreement was not material and did not create a reasonable probability of a different result. The court also held that the omission of an intentional second-degree murder instruction was not clearly erroneous.

Holdings

1. The State's failure to disclose during trial that Layne had reached a tentative plea agreement did not warrant a new trial because the information was not material under Brady. Layne was not yet obligated to plead or available to testify, the trial was not required to be delayed or mistried, his statements remained admissible as declarations against interest regardless of his availability, and there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome.
2. The invited-error doctrine did not bar review because Soto's counsel did not affirmatively request that the instruction be omitted or decline an offered instruction; counsel merely acquiesced in the district court's determination that no lesser instruction was justified.
3. The intentional second-degree murder instruction was legally and factually appropriate, but its omission was not clearly erroneous because Soto failed to firmly convince the court that giving the instruction would have changed the verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State's failure to disclose during Soto's trial that codefendant Layne had reached a tentative plea agreement violated due process or required a new trial under Brady v. Maryland.
2. Whether the district court's failure to instruct the jury on intentional second-degree murder as a lesser included offense was invited error or, alternatively, clearly erroneous.

Disposition

affirmed