Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Kora L. Liles' convictions and sentences arising from three murders and related offenses. The court held that the prosecutor's comments about Liles' credibility did not constitute prosecutorial error and that the district court was not required to give a modified cautionary instruction regarding accomplice witnesses who testified in exchange for benefits. The court also declined to review Liles' claim concerning an alleged postconviction sentencing agreement because the record was inadequate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor committed error by arguing that the reasons for viewing accomplice testimony cautiously also applied to Liles's testimony.
- Whether the district court erred by refusing to give or modify the cautionary informant or accomplice instruction to address witnesses who testified for the State in exchange for benefits.
- Whether the alleged errors cumulatively denied Liles a fair trial.
- Whether the State breached an unwritten postconviction agreement to make a favorable sentencing recommendation in exchange for Liles's testimony in other participants' cases, and whether the claim could be reviewed on the appellate record.
Holdings
- The prosecutor did not commit prosecutorial error by arguing that Liles had a bias and that her testimony was less credible than the testimony of cooperating witnesses. The argument addressed credibility and was supported by evidence; it did not misstate the law or improperly instruct the jury that the accomplice instruction legally applied to Liles.
- A district court is not legally required to instruct the jury to view with caution the testimony of a noninformant witness who testifies in exchange for benefits from the State. The court properly refused Liles's requested informant instruction and proposed modification of the accomplice instruction.
- There was no cumulative error because neither of the two asserted errors had merit.
- Liles's claim that the State breached an unwritten postconviction agreement was not appropriate for appellate review because she failed to develop an adequate record establishing the agreement's terms and did not support the legal theory with pertinent authority.
Key quotations
“A district court is not legally required to instruct a jury to view with caution the testimony of a noninformant witness who is testifying in exchange for benefits from the State.” (1)
“As in Dean, the jury in Liles' case knew about the witness' benefits and was capable of weighing their credibility without a more explicit caution in the instructions addressing that possibility.” (12)
Factual background
Three people were murdered at Liles's Topeka home during the night of March 11-12, 2017. Luke Davis died after being strangled with an electric-fan cord, Nicole Fisher was suffocated with a plastic bag, and Matthew Leavitt died from strangulation during a struggle. Shane Mays and Richard Folsom testified for the State while anticipating benefits or reduced charges, and Liles testified in her own defense. The prosecutor argued that Liles's testimony was biased and less credible than the cooperating witnesses' testimony.
Procedural history
A Shawnee County grand jury indicted Liles on 11 charges arising from three murders and related conduct. A jury convicted her on all counts, and the district court imposed consecutive sentences on nearly all convictions, including three hard-25 sentences for felony murder. Liles appealed, challenging the prosecutor's closing argument, the refusal to give or modify a cautionary accomplice or informant instruction, cumulative error, and an alleged postconviction sentencing agreement.