Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Brandon Warren’s convictions for premeditated first-degree murder, intentional second-degree murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory, and attempted premeditated first-degree murder arising from an attempted drug-house robbery. The court rejected Warren’s claims concerning juror and witness comments, newly discovered evidence, severance, jury instructions, cumulative error, and postrelease supervision. Relying on Alleyne v. United States and State v. Soto, the court vacated Warren’s hard 50 life sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether comments by a potential juror about fear of retaliation irreparably tainted the jury pool and required a mistrial.
- Whether a detective's reference to Warren and his associates created prejudicial misconduct requiring a mistrial.
- Whether newly discovered letters and an affidavit concerning alleged statements by the surviving witness warranted a new trial or an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether Warren and Moore had antagonistic defenses requiring severance of their joint trial.
- Whether the reasonable-doubt jury instruction stating that the State had to prove the truth of any of the claims, rather than each claim, was clearly erroneous.
- Whether cumulative error required reversal of the convictions.
- Whether Kansas's hard 50 sentencing procedure was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment because a judge, rather than a jury, found the aggravating facts increasing the mandatory minimum sentence.
- Whether the hard 50 sentence was illegal because the district court allegedly failed to make written findings of aggravating circumstances.
- Whether the district court improperly ordered lifetime postrelease supervision rather than parole.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial because the potential juror was excused, the court gave curative and explanatory instructions, and the record did not show that the jury pool was actually prejudiced.
- The detective's isolated reference to Warren and his associates did not constitute a fundamental failure in the proceeding or require a mistrial.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because the proffered inmate statements lacked demonstrated credibility and, at most, impeached the surviving witness's testimony without constituting a formal recantation.
- The district court properly denied severance because Warren and Moore did not present antagonistic defenses.
- The challenged reasonable-doubt instruction was legally appropriate and was not clearly erroneous.
- The Kansas hard 50 sentencing procedure was unconstitutional as applied because the sentencing judge, rather than a jury, found the aggravating facts that increased Warren's mandatory minimum sentence.
Key quotations
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(c), a district court may declare a mistrial if prejudicial conduct, inside or outside the courtroom, makes it impossible for the trial to proceed without injustice to the prosecution or defense.” (at 608)
“Antagonistic defenses have been referred to as the “most compelling ground for severance.”” (at 618)
“Alleyne held that a person’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that any fact increasing a mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must he proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” (at 623)
Factual background
Charles Ford and Larry LeDoux were killed during an attempted robbery of a drug house, and Brandon Ford survived after exchanging gunfire with the perpetrators. Brandon initially identified Warren, whom he knew as Cedric or “Ced,” as one shooter and later identified Dominic Moore as the other. Physical evidence included cartridge casings from multiple firearms, a Glock recovered from a Missouri residence where Warren and Moore were apprehended, and DNA on the Glock consistent with Moore's profile. Warren presented alibi testimony, but the jury convicted him of all three charged offenses.
Procedural history
Warren and codefendant Dominic Moore were tried jointly in the district court and convicted as charged. The district court denied motions for mistrial, a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and Warren's motion to sever. It imposed a hard 50 life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction and ordered concurrent sentences on the other convictions, followed by Warren's timely direct appeal.
Remand instructions
The hard 50 life sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing. Warren's convictions are affirmed.