Case Title: State v. Hilyard

Citation: 

Docket Number: 123323

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2022-08-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 123,323 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
RACHAEL C. HILYARD, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
1. 
 
Premeditation may be shown by circumstantial evidence, provided inferences from 
that evidence are reasonable.  
 
2. 
 
Sufficient evidence, even circumstantial, need not rise to such a degree of certainty 
that it excludes any and every other reasonable conclusion.  
 
3. 
 
A defendant must consent to the use of a guilt-based defense, but that consent 
need not be on the record.  
 
4. 
 
Absent a request from the defendant, this court need not remand a case for an 
evidentiary hearing to resolve an ineffective assistance claim raised for the first time on 
direct appeal.  
 
2 
 
 
 
5. 
 
During closing arguments, a prosecutor does not shift the burden of proof to the 
defendant by pointing out a lack of evidence either to support a defense or to corroborate 
a defendant's argument about deficiencies in the State's case. Nor does a prosecutor shift 
the burden of proof by mentioning the lack of evidence to rebut testimony and other 
evidence presented by the State.  
 
6. 
 
A jury determines the weight and credit to be given the testimony of each witness. 
While prosecutors are not allowed to offer personal opinions on credibility, a prosecutor 
may suggest legitimate factors for the jury to consider when assessing witness credibility. 
 
7. 
 
K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3429 imposes no affirmative duty for courts to raise the 
issue of whether to order a mental examination. If the issue is raised, the decision of 
whether to order such mental examination is discretionary.  
 
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; BRUCE C. BROWN, judge. Opinion filed August 19, 2022. 
Affirmed. 
 
Randall L. Hodgkinson, of the Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on 
the briefs for appellant.  
 
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, 
and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee. 
 
 
 
3 
 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
WILSON, J.:  This is Rachael Hilyard's direct appeal after the district court imposed 
a hard 50 prison sentence for her first-degree premeditated murder conviction. Hilyard 
appeals on several theories, including insufficient evidence to support premeditation, 
erroneous jury instruction, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial error, and the 
district court's abuse of discretion. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm Hilyard's 
conviction and sentence. 
 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
In April 2017, then 9-year-old J.G. accompanied his grandmother, Micki Davis, to 
the home of Rachael Hilyard, his dad's ex-girlfriend. Davis had received a phone call 
from Hilyard to pick up J.G.'s dad's things or Hilyard would leave them at the curb. 
While gathering those things at Hilyard's home, Hilyard and Davis got into a fight. 
According to J.G., Hilyard suddenly pushed Davis from behind and began attacking her.  
 
As soon as J.G. saw the attack, he ran to Davis' pickup parked in the driveway, 
locked himself inside, and called 911. While J.G. was in the truck, Hilyard approached 
the truck and talked to J.G., asking him to let her in. She eventually left to go back into 
the house.  
 
J.G. left the truck and began running. He eventually stopped at the home of 
Brandon Martinez, who was out in his garage. Martinez took over the 911 phone call for 
J.G., and law enforcement soon arrived. With J.G. safely in the patrol vehicle, Officers 
Crouch and Spicuglia tried to make contact at Hilyard's house by knocking on the front 
door, looking through windows, and trying the back door—all with no response. Finally, 
 
4 
 
 
Officer Spicuglia lifted the single-stall garage door. Inside, he saw a female body near a 
large pool of blood. The body's head was missing. 
 
Officer Crouch moved to cover the perimeter of the house to contain whatever 
evidence and suspects might be in the residence until more officers could arrive. When 
more officers arrived on the scene, they entered the house and found Hilyard on the floor 
of the bathroom. Hilyard immediately complied with all the officers' verbal commands. 
She did not have any weapons and did not resist officers as they took her into custody. 
The officers then found Davis' head in the kitchen sink. CSI collected two bloody kitchen 
knives from near Davis' body. 
 
While being transported, Hilyard overheard some radio traffic where the dispatch 
gave the incorrect address for her home; without prompting, Hilyard coherently gave the 
officers her correct address. After being placed in an interrogation room, Hilyard made an 
unprompted statement to an officer to the effect of "this is my fault." 
 
During an autopsy, the coroner found bruises on Davis' head, face, breast, and 
lower back, as well as eight fractured ribs:  all evidence of blunt force trauma. The 
coroner testified there was no way to know whether someone had lost consciousness 
based only on this type of bruising; but it was possible. The coroner then detailed the 
sharp force injuries to Davis' neck; he could not tell exactly how many stab wounds there 
were but was confident it was not just one uninterrupted cut through the neck. The 
coroner explained that to sever the head from a torso, one must use significant effort. The 
coroner also said he found blood in Davis' lungs, leading him to believe she was still 
breathing while her throat was cut. Ultimately, the coroner ruled the cause of death was 
sharp force injuries through the neck. 
 
 
5 
 
 
The physical evidence found in Hilyard's garage also suggested Davis was likely 
alive while being decapitated. Crime scene investigators found blood spatters at the scene 
which they believed had been caused by arterial spray—which generally requires an 
amount of blood pressure or a pumping heart. 
 
Hilyard was charged with first-degree premeditated murder. Initially, she was 
found incompetent to stand trial and was ordered to undergo treatment at Larned State 
Security Hospital. After treatment and a competency evaluation from Larned, the district 
court found Hilyard competent to stand trial. 
 
During the defense's opening statement, counsel acknowledged this was not a 
"whodunit" case; there was no issue about who killed Davis. Rather, defense counsel told 
the jury "when you have all of the evidence, I expect you will render a guilty verdict to 
my client on the appropriate charge." 
 
Hilyard testified as part of her defense. She acknowledged she was expecting 
Davis and J.G. to pick up some of her ex-boyfriend's things and said she'd known Davis 
for probably 20 years. While discussing a painting Hilyard wanted to give to Davis, 
Hilyard thought Davis flinched at her. She "reacted," and they wrestled from the 
adjoining laundry room into the garage, where Hilyard believed J.G. to be. Hilyard 
admitted Davis did not touch her before the scuffle. Hilyard did not perceive Davis as a 
threat but was "on edge" because she thought someone was coming to kill her. Hilyard 
did not remember the details of the fight, but she knew she and Davis wrestled to the 
garage. Contrary to the blunt force injuries found during the autopsy, Hilyard denied 
remembering punching Davis at all. She did remember both herself and Davis "resisting."  
 
 
6 
 
 
Hilyard remembered J.G. running out of the garage during the fight. Hilyard 
testified that when the fight ended, Davis was lying on the garage floor. She avoided 
looking at Davis because she feared someone was watching her—Hilyard—through her 
own eyes. She closed the garage door.  
 
Hilyard testified that she then went into the house looking for J.G. Upon realizing 
he was not in the house, she walked outside and found him in the truck. She approached 
the truck and was confused as to why he was so scared; Hilyard told J.G. he did not need 
to be scared. J.G. told Hilyard he was calling 911, at which point Hilyard returned to the 
house.  
 
Hilyard explained that once she was back in the house, she got one knife and went 
back out into the garage. She testified she did not know Davis was still alive, nor did she 
know Davis was breathing. But Hilyard also testified she went to the garage "to go make 
sure [Davis] was okay still" . . . "'cuz [Hilyard] thought [Davis] was gonna get back up."  
 
Hilyard then began severing Davis' head because "things" told Hilyard she had 
little time and she needed to get Davis' head away from her body so her soul could get 
free and go to heaven. As Hilyard was cutting through Davis' neck, the first knife broke. 
She had to stop and go get another knife from the kitchen. After severing Davis' head, 
Hilyard walked into the kitchen and placed Davis' head in the sink. Then she went into 
the bathroom, where she believed she stayed until the police arrived. 
 
During closing, defense counsel again summed up its position as, "[m]y client 
killed Ms. Davis, but there's no premeditation." Counsel supported this by highlighting 
Hilyard's belief that Davis was already dead. Other than Hilyard's own testimony, defense 
counsel presented no evidence.  
 
7 
 
 
 
The court instructed the jury on three lesser included offenses, but the jury 
ultimately convicted Hilyard of premeditated first-degree murder. The district court 
sentenced Hilyard to life in prison with no chance of parole for 50 years. Hilyard filed a 
timely notice of appeal.  
 
ANALYSIS 
 
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 
 
Hilyard's first issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support 
the jury's finding of premeditation. She argues there was not. We find sufficient evidence 
in the record to support a finding of premeditation and no error below. 
 
Preservation 
 
 
Generally, there is no requirement for a criminal defendant to challenge the 
sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court to preserve it for appeal. State v. Farmer, 
285 Kan. 541, 545, 175 P.3d 221 (2008). We find no exception in this case to that general 
rule. 
 
Standard of Review 
 
 
 
There must be evidence supporting each element of a crime to meet the 
sufficiency of the evidence standard. An appellate court reviews sufficiency by looking at 
all the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a 
rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In 
 
8 
 
 
making that determination, the appellate court will not reweigh evidence, evaluate 
witness credibility, or resolve conflicts in the evidence. State v. Gonzalez, 307 Kan. 575, 
586, 412 P.3d 968 (2018).  
 
Discussion 
 
 
"Premeditation is the process of thinking about a proposed killing before engaging 
in the homicidal conduct." State v. Scott, 271 Kan. 103, 108, 21 P.3d 516 (2001). Thus, 
Hilyard argues she could not have formed premeditation unless she knew, or reasonably 
should have known, that Davis was still alive before Hilyard dealt the fatal cut. 
 
Premeditation need not be proved by direct evidence. Premeditation may be shown 
by circumstantial evidence, provided inferences are reasonable. Our caselaw identifies 
five factors to consider when deciding whether circumstantial evidence gives rise to an 
inference of premeditation:  "'(1) the nature of the weapon used; (2) lack of provocation; 
(3) the defendant's conduct before and after the killing; (4) threats and declarations of the 
defendant before and during the occurrence; and (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the 
deceased was felled and rendered helpless.'" State v. Kettler, 299 Kan. 448, 467, 325 P.3d 
1075 (2014) (quoting State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614, 617-18, 186 P.3d 755 [2008]). 
Inferences reasonably drawn are not driven by the number of factors present in a 
particular case, because in some cases one factor alone may be compelling evidence of 
premeditation. See State v. Cook, 286 Kan. 1098, 1102, 191 P.3d 294 (2008). 
 
It is not improper for a conviction to be sustained by circumstantial evidence, and 
if there is substantial evidence this court will not disturb a guilty verdict. Sufficient 
evidence, even circumstantial, need not rise to such a degree of certainty that it excludes 
 
9 
 
 
any and every other reasonable conclusion. State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3, 25, 371 P.3d 
836 (2016).  
 
 
Hilyard focuses simply on her contention that the State did not prove, even 
circumstantially, she knew Davis was alive when she delivered the fatal cut. While Davis 
may have been alive but unconscious, Hilyard claims no evidence showed she knew or 
reasonably could have known Davis was alive. This argument focuses on the fifth factor 
above:  the dealing of lethal blows after the deceased was felled and rendered helpless.  
 
 
But there is evidence from which the jury could infer Hilyard knew Davis was 
alive before she began to sever Davis' head and before Hilyard committed the final act 
that ended Davis' life. For example, the coroner testified about forensic evidence which 
indicates Davis was likely alive when Hilyard began that process. There was blood in 
Davis' airways, which in this case illustrates she was still breathing when at least one of 
the cuts was made to her neck. In addition, a crime scene investigator testified that the 
arterial spray blood spatter patterns demonstrate Davis had blood pressure and a pumping 
heart when at least some of the cuts were made.  
 
Hilyard argues the coroner never testified that evidence of life would have been 
apparent to a layperson; the State counters that even a layperson would understand these 
to be signs of a living victim. Hilyard herself testified she went back to the garage "to go 
make sure [Davis] was okay still" because "[she] thought [Davis] was gonna get back 
up." By her own admission, a reasonable juror could have inferred that before 
decapitating Davis, Hilyard thought Davis was "okay" and could have gotten back up.  
 
 
10 
 
 
 
Touching on the other Kettler factors, J.G. reported the attack was unprovoked. By 
Hilyard's account, the attack began when Davis gave her a sideways glance and flinched, 
which a reasonable juror could infer was no provocation at all.  
 
 
There is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of premeditation, based 
on reasonable inferences from physical evidence and the testimony of witnesses, 
including Hilyard. We find no error below.  
 
JURY INSTRUCTIONS 
 
Next, Hilyard asserts the omission of additional language in a jury instruction was 
error. This additional language clarifies the distinction between intent and premeditation. 
Because Hilyard has not shown how the jury instruction, as given, was erroneous, we 
find no error.  
 
Preservation 
 
 
Hilyard did not request at trial the jury instruction she now claims to be proper. 
While that means the issue was not preserved for appeal, such preservation is not a 
prerequisite to our consideration of the merits. However, failure to preserve the issue 
does affect our standard of review. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3414(3).  
 
Standard of Review 
 
"When a party challenges a district court's failure to give a particular instruction, 
we review the challenge in three steps. First, we decide whether a failure to preserve the 
issue or a lack of appellate jurisdiction precludes us from reviewing the challenge at all. 
 
11 
 
 
Parties generally cannot raise issues for the first time on appeal. . . . But a party may raise 
a jury-instruction challenge for the first time on appeal under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-
3414(3) if the 'failure to give an instruction is clearly erroneous.' . . .  
 
"At step two of our analysis, we evaluate the merits of the claim to determine 
whether the district court erred by failing to give the instruction. In this step, we examine 
whether the proposed instruction was both legally and factually appropriate. But we are 
also mindful that a party is not entitled to any proposed instruction merely because it is 
legally and factually appropriate. Thus, if the requested instruction is legally and factually 
appropriate, we must also determine whether the instructions given by the district court, 
considered together as a whole, properly and fairly stated the applicable law and were not 
reasonably likely to mislead the jury. If so, the district court's failure to give the requested 
instruction does not constitute error. Our review at this step is unlimited, meaning we 
need not defer to any conclusions that the district court made about the propriety of the 
instruction. If we conclude that the district court did err, then we move to step three.  
 
"At step three, we determine whether the district court's error warrants reversal. 
If the party failed to request an otherwise appropriate instruction at trial, . . . the 
Legislature has instructed us to review only for clear error. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-
3414(3) (providing that '[n]o party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an 
instruction . . . unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires' or 'unless . . . the 
failure to give an instruction is clearly erroneous'). Under that standard, we will reverse a 
conviction only if the party firmly convinces us that the jury would have reached a 
different verdict had the district court given the instruction. [Citations omitted.]" State v. 
Shields, 315 Kan. 814, 819-21, 511 P.3d 931 (2022). 
 
 
"The first element of this analysis ultimately affects the last one 'in that whether a 
party has preserved an issue for review will have an impact on the standard by which we 
determine whether an error is reversible.'" State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216, 223, 445 P.3d 726 
(2019) (quoting State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 377, 353 P.3d 1108 [2015]).  
 
12 
 
 
 
Hilyard argues that the failure to give her requested instruction was clearly 
erroneous, and the State has not disputed her ability to raise that claim for the first time 
on appeal. Thus, our review is not foreclosed under the first step of the analysis, and we 
will reach the merits of the instructional challenge. 
 
Discussion 
 
 
The district court gave Hilyard's jury the standard instruction on premeditation 
found at PIK Crim. 4th 54.150 (2020 Supp.). It states:  "Premeditation means to have 
thought the matter over beforehand, in other words, to have formed the design or intent to 
kill before the act. Although there is no specific time period required for premeditation, 
the concept of premeditation requires more than the instantaneous, intentional act of 
taking another's life." This instruction was requested by Hilyard. She proposed no 
additional language. 
 
 
Hilyard now argues the district court should have modified the PIK instruction by 
adding the following language as part of the instruction on premeditation:  
"Premeditation requires more than mere impulse, aim, purpose, or objective. It requires a 
period, however brief, of thoughtful, conscious reflection and pondering—done before 
the final act of killing—that is sufficient to allow the actor to change his or her mind and 
abandon his or her previous impulsive intentions." Hilyard's argument on this issue is 
based on this court's recent decision in State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557, 569, 574, 478 P.3d 
324 (2020), where this court advised it was best practice to use such language when the 
district court also modifies the PIK instructions to include:  "'Premeditation does not have 
to be present before a fight, quarrel, or struggle begins. Premeditation is the time of 
reflection or deliberation. Premeditation does not necessarily mean that an act is planned, 
 
13 
 
 
contrived or schemed beforehand. . . . Premeditation can occur during the middle of a 
violent episode, struggle or fight.'" Notably, Hilyard does not argue the district court 
should have included the full modifications outlined in Stanley in the instructions given 
to her jury. 
 
 
The instructions as given, without the additional requested language, must 
constitute error for Hilyard to succeed. If the instructions given were sufficient, meaning 
that they properly and fairly stated the law and were not reasonably likely to mislead the 
jury, there is no error for an appellate court to correct. Shields, 315 Kan. at 821. In such a 
situation, Shields shows that it is immaterial if another instruction, upon retrospect, was 
also legally and factually appropriate, even if such instruction might have been more 
clear or more thorough than the one given. 315 Kan. at 820.  
 
"'The use of PIK instructions is not mandatory but is strongly recommended. The pattern 
instructions have been developed by a knowledgeable committee to bring accuracy, 
clarity, and uniformity to jury instructions. They should be the starting point in the 
preparation of any set of jury instructions. If the particular facts in a given case require 
modification of the applicable pattern instruction or the addition of some instruction not 
included in PIK, the district court should not hesitate to make such modification or 
addition. However, absent such need, PIK instructions and recommendations should be 
followed.'" State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460, 470, 372 P.3d 1161 (2016) (quoting State v. 
Dixon, 289 Kan. 46, Syl. ¶ 1, 209 P.3d 675 [2009]). 
 
Thus, a district court has discretion to modify the PIK language where such 
modification is legally and factually appropriate. The district courts in both Bernhardt 
and Stanley found a particular need to include additional language based on the facts 
before them. Upon our review of the facts in those cases, we ruled the additions to the 
PIK language—and thus the jury instructions as given—remained legally and factually 
appropriate. 
But Hilyard advances a different line of argument:  that the instruction as given, 
without parts of the supplemental language, was erroneous. Hilyard asserts that the 
additional language would have been "helpful to prevent the 'blurring of the distinction 
between intent and premeditation,'" because of the "brawl" she asserts took place between 
herself and the victim. In other words, Hilyard's claim relies on the assumption that the 
PIK, as written, represents an insufficient statement of the law. 
We disagree. While the additional language clarifies the law of premeditation in 
some circumstances, it does not change the core substance accurately set forth in the PIK. 
In Stanley, as in Bernhardt, we deemed the additional language "both a correct statement 
of the law and factually appropriate given the potential for juror confusion over the 
temporal intricacies embedded in the legal concept of premeditation." State v. Stanley, 
312 Kan. at 565. But although the added language may enhance a jury's understanding of 
the law, we cannot agree that the PIK, standing alone, is an incorrect, insufficient, or 
unnecessarily confusing statement of the law. State v. McDaniel, 306 Kan. 595, 615, 395 
P.3d 429 (2017) ("To be legally appropriate, 'an instruction must always fairly and 
accurately state the applicable law . . . .'"); State v. Uk, 311 Kan. 393, 401-02, 461 P.3d 32 
(2020) (finding identical language "fairly and clearly sets forth the law").  
A close inspection of Hilyard's rationale shows only that the jury may have found 
her additional instruction language "helpful" because there had been a "brawl." Even if 
true, it is beside the point. The existence of a brawl, fight, or disagreement at some time 
before the act of killing does not require additional assistance to the jury in every case on 
the issue of premeditation; the standard PIK language is legally sufficient and generally 
14 
 
15 
 
 
not likely to mislead the jury. In both Bernhardt and Stanley, there was a temporal 
element that prompted the district court—in its discretion—to believe the jury may have 
confused the issues of intent and premeditation. Neither a temporal element, nor any 
other expressed reason for jury confusion has been shown here. And we must keep in 
mind that Hilyard does not now request the full modified instructions approved of in 
Stanley and Bernhardt, only a snippet. Assuming, without deciding, her proposed 
modified instructions remain legally appropriate, Hilyard still simply fails to show any 
necessity for the additional language such that the absence of that language was 
erroneous. The instruction given was legally appropriate and not reasonably likely to 
confuse the jury under the circumstances of this case.  
 
Next, for all the reasons above that we found there was sufficient evidence to 
support the jury's finding of premeditation, we also find it was factually appropriate to 
give the standard instruction. State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378, 386, 486 P.3d 551 (2021) 
(For an instruction to be factually appropriate, there must be sufficient evidence—viewed 
in a light most favorable to the requesting party—to support the jury instruction.). While 
Hilyard's proposed instruction would also have been factually appropriate, the additional 
language she proposes was not necessary under the facts of this case. We find no error in 
the instruction given. 
 
Given our holding that the instructions as given were sufficient—being both 
legally and factually appropriate—that is where our analysis ends. There was no error 
below, so a prejudice analysis is unnecessary.  
 
 
 
 
 
16 
 
 
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 
 
In her third issue, Hilyard argues there must be an adequate showing on the record 
that her trial counsel received her informed consent to pursue a guilt-based defense. 
Otherwise, both her Sixth Amendment right to counsel and her right to a jury trial are 
violated and this court must reverse her conviction and remand for a new trial.  
 
During trial, Hilyard's counsel conceded there was no question that Hilyard killed 
Davis. This is called a guilt-based defense. Although some form of homicide is admitted 
by this defense, thereby functionally relieving the State of its burden to prove to the jury 
beyond a reasonable doubt that Hilyard killed Davis, there may have been a good 
strategic reason for using such a defense. As there are different classifications of criminal 
homicide, some more serious than others, the admission of one element—the killing—
may make a jury more amenable to a defendant's arguments about other elements of 
relevant charges. The guilt-based defense is sometimes used to emphasize the credibility 
of another defense, especially if the defendant's counsel knows the cause and manner of a 
victim's death seem obvious or could be proved easily.  
 
Hilyard does not argue in her brief that she did not consent to her trial counsel's 
guilt-based defense. Rather, she suggests there must be a showing on the record; the 
record must disclose Hilyard agreed to the guilt-based defense. Without such, she argues 
there was ineffective assistance of counsel so much that we must reverse and remand her 
case for a new trial. 
 
We find that Hilyard failed to preserve the issue and we decline to review it. 
 
 
 
17 
 
 
Preservation 
 
 
Defense counsel has no right to conduct a defense premised on guilt over a client's 
objection. State v. Carter, 270 Kan. 426, 440, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (2000) (defense 
counsel's imposing a guilt-based defense against defendant's wishes violated his Sixth 
Amendment right to counsel and denied him a fair trial). Hilyard does not claim she 
objected to—or even complained of—a guilt-based defense. In fact, she may have 
consented to such a defense. Hilyard does not say, and we do not know. She argues 
simply that by judicial fiat we should create a rule which presumes there is no consent to 
a guilt-based defense unless that consent is made on the record. Further, she argues that 
without such a record, trial counsel was necessarily ineffective, and the proper remedy is 
a new trial. 
 
The merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim are not ordinarily 
addressed for the first time on appeal. The usual course is a request by appellate counsel 
for remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance 
claim, commonly called a "Van Cleave hearing." See State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 
120, 716 P.2d 580 (1986).  
 
But Hilyard's counsel does not request remand for a Van Cleave hearing on her 
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. When appellate counsel does not request a 
hearing, this court need not order a Van Cleave remand sua sponte. See State v. Dull, 298 
Kan. 832, 839, 317 P.3d 104 (2014) (declining to remand because of appellate counsel's 
apparently deliberate decision not to seek a Van Cleave hearing, even though at least one 
of the defendant's arguments may require an evidentiary hearing to resolve it).  
 
 
18 
 
 
Hilyard's assertion that a remand is unnecessary for an appellate court to resolve 
the issue has rarely been successful. 
 
 
"Although 'there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be 
established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial 
counsel is obvious,' and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised 
for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are 'extremely rare.' Rowland, 289 Kan. 
at 1084-85; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379, 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to 
consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining to remand 
for Van Cleave hearing based on defendant's failure to meet minimal requirements); 
Laymon v. State, 280 Kan. 430, 444, 122 P.3d 326 (2005) (direct appeal counsel's 
performance objectively unreasonable; performance prejudiced defendant); Carter, 270 
Kan. at 433-34, 440-41 (trial counsel's pursuit of guilt-based defense despite client's 
contrary wishes ineffective, prejudicial per se)." Dull, 298 Kan. at 839. 
 
 
The record in Carter established one of the "extremely rare" times the 
ineffectiveness claim could be resolved when raised first on appeal. But the 
circumstances of Carter are strikingly different than those present in Hilyard's case.  
 
 
In Carter, the defendant made repeated and vigorous objections to his trial 
counsel's use of a guilt-based defense. Just like Hilyard's case, trial counsel admitted 
involvement in a homicide, but argued there was no premeditation. Unlike Hilyard, the 
defendant in Carter maintained his total innocence and complained vociferously—on the 
record—more than once when his defense counsel attempted to use a guilt-based defense.  
 
 
This court accepted Carter's claim—raised for the first time on appeal—because 
the record was sufficient to decide the issue on direct appeal. The acts of counsel that 
Carter relied on were not in dispute and there was no purpose to a remand. Carter, 270 
 
19 
 
 
Kan. at 432-33. Hilyard's case is not the same. Hilyard never objected on the record to 
her trial counsel's use of a guilt-based strategy. Notably, she actively participated in it. 
Hilyard took the stand and admitted to killing Davis. The purpose of her testimony 
reflected her defense strategy:  convincing the jury that there was no premeditation.  
 
 
Simply put, Hilyard's case is not one of the "extremely rare" times an 
ineffectiveness claim can be resolved on direct appeal. Her complained of error is that her 
trial attorney did not memorialize her explicit consent to a guilt-based defense on the 
record. But we find no rule that says it must be so and no compelling reason to impose 
such a rule now. We will not create the presumption Hilyard seeks.  
 
Conversely, there is also no rule that requires a defendant to object to a guilt-based 
defense on the record. Neither is there a rule creating a presumption that she has not 
objected to such a defense if the objection is not made on the record.  
 
 
The only dispute Hilyard offers is whether she consented to the guilt-based 
defense; if she told her attorney she did not want to use a guilt-based defense and they 
used one anyway, it would certainly be ineffective assistance of counsel. Without a rule 
requiring either on-the-record consent or on-the-record objection, an evidentiary hearing 
would be the proper avenue to determine whether Hilyard opposed her trial counsel's 
defense strategy. Quite simply, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to 
obtain consent for a guilt-based defense must be proved below. It has not been. 
Hilyard did not ask for a remand for an evidentiary hearing in her appeal, which she 
states was an intentional choice. Both her brief and her reply brief argue that "[t]he only 
proper remedy is to reverse and remand for a new trial." As this court demonstrated in 
Dull, absent a request from the defendant, it need not remand a case for an evidentiary 
 
20 
 
 
hearing to resolve an ineffective assistance claim raised for the first time on direct appeal. 
Dull, 298 Kan. at 839-40.  
 
 
No remand for a Van Cleave hearing was requested and one will not be ordered 
sua sponte by this court. 
  
 
In sum, this issue is not preserved and we decline review. 
 
PROSECUTORIAL ERROR 
 
In her fourth issue for review, Hilyard argues that the prosecutor misstated the law 
during closing arguments, which effectively shifted the burden and constituted 
prosecutorial error. We disagree and find no error. 
 
Preservation 
 
 
Hilyard did not object to the State's closing argument at trial. While this court can 
consider the presence—or absence—of a contemporaneous objection when analyzing an 
instance of alleged prosecutorial error, no objection is needed to preserve it for review. 
State v. Blevins, 313 Kan. 413, 428, 485 P.3d 1175 (2021).  
 
Standard of Review 
 
 
There are two steps to the prosecutorial error analysis: 
 
"[T]he appellate court must decide whether the prosecutorial acts complained of fall 
outside the wide latitude afforded prosecutors to conduct the State's case and attempt to 
 
21 
 
 
obtain a conviction in a manner that does not offend the defendant's constitutional right to 
a fair trial. If error is found, the appellate court must next determine whether the error 
prejudiced the defendant's due process rights to a fair trial. In evaluating prejudice . . . 
prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt 
that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of 
the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to 
the verdict.'" State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88, 109, 378 P.3d 1060 (2016) (quoting Ward, 
292 Kan. 541, Syl. ¶ 6). 
 
Prosecutors fall outside their wide latitude—and thus commit error—if they 
misstate the law. State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216, 221, 445 P.3d 726 (2019). Likewise, it is 
improper for the prosecutor to attempt to shift the burden of proof to the defendant.  
 
 
A prosecutor does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant by pointing out a 
lack of evidence either to support a defense or to corroborate a defendant's argument 
about deficiencies in the State's case. Nor does a prosecutor shift the burden of proof by 
posing a general question about the lack of evidence offered to rebut testimony and other 
evidence presented by the State. The prosecutor's comment must be evaluated in context 
and can be mitigated by jury instructions on the burden of proof. State v. Watson, 313 
Kan. 170, 176-77, 484 P.3d 877 (2021). 
 
Discussion 
 
 
In Hilyard's case, the district court instructed the jury on three lesser included 
offenses, including second-degree intentional murder, second-degree reckless murder, 
and involuntary manslaughter. It also properly instructed the jury on the law, explaining 
that if the jury had a reasonable doubt between a greater and lesser offense, it could only 
convict of the lesser. 
 
22 
 
 
 
 
During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor discussed the jury's options 
between the charge of premeditated first-degree murder and the three lesser included 
offenses. He also properly explained, "it is for you to determine the weight and credit to 
be given the testimony of each witness." 
 
Later, the prosecutor specifically addressed with the jury the lesser included 
offenses of second-degree reckless murder and involuntary manslaughter:  
 
 
"These other two statutes—excuse me, other two options are reckless murder, 
which says you do something recklessly, and here's the definition, and then there's a 
definition of involuntary manslaughter, which gives a lesser—a lesser degree of 
recklessness. This applies if you believe that Ms. Hilyard truly didn't know [Davis] was 
still alive and just recklessly disregarded the fact that she was a living, breathing human 
being when she slit her throat." (Emphasis added.)  
 
And he continues, circling back to the jury's role: 
 
 
"Again, instruction two, you judge the credibility of all witnesses. On this day 
this woman attacks from behind, without provocation, this is according to [J.G.]. And you 
can judge [J.G.]'s credibility and how many other things he got right. Without any 
provocation this woman attacks his grandmother, beats her to the ground, and when she's 
unable to defend herself she takes—she goes back in the house, makes a decision, goes 
back in the house, gets a knife, makes sure that the garage door is down and then she is 
determined to do what she did until she has completed the task. I'm asking you to find 
this woman guilty of first degree premeditated murder." 
 
 
Hilyard only complains about the emphasized language above, "if you believe that 
Ms. Hilyard truly didn't know [Davis] was still alive." She contends that this both 
 
23 
 
 
misstates the law and shifts the burden from the State to herself because "the jury didn't 
have to believe anything in order to convict Ms. Hilyard of the lesser included offense—
it only had to form a reasonable doubt that the state proved intent and premeditation." 
Hilyard argues that this statement shifted the burden in a way that the jury could only 
convict of the lesser offense if it believed that the defense proved something, i.e., whether 
Hilyard knew Davis was still alive.  
 
 
But the State did not say the jury had to believe the defense proved anything. 
Rather, the prosecutor was explaining which lesser offense might apply depending on the 
determinations the jury made about the evidence. As the State points out, it is like the 
prosecutor saying "if you find" rather than "if you believe." In other words, if the State 
failed to prove to the jury that Hilyard did know Davis was still alive (i.e., if the jury 
believed/found Hilyard did not know Davis was still alive), a lesser included offense 
might apply.  
 
 
To any extent the prosecutor was referring to believing Hilyard specifically, it 
would not have been burden shifting; it would have been in the context of the jury's role 
of determining the weight and credit to be given to the testimony of each witness. While 
prosecutors are not allowed to offer personal opinions on credibility, this court has held 
that a prosecutor may explain the legitimate factors which a jury may consider in 
assessing witness credibility and may argue why the factors present in the case should 
lead to a compelling inference of truthfulness. State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 911, 935-37, 
329 P.3d 400 (2014).  
 
 
Just after the "believe" language, the prosecutor highlighted the factors which 
could compel the jury to believe J.G.'s truthfulness and which simultaneously undercut 
Hilyard's own testimony. Just like in Williams, the prosecutor's statements here, when 
 
24 
 
 
placed in context, permissibly directed the jury to the evidence that boosted or degraded 
the credibility of the witnesses. We find no error. 
 
MENTAL EVALUATION 
 
Finally, Hilyard argues the district court's failure to order a mental evaluation 
under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3429 constitutes an abuse of discretion which requires this 
court to reverse her sentence and remand with directions for the district court to order an 
evaluation according to the statute. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3429 states in full: 
 
"After conviction and prior to sentence and as part of the presentence 
investigation authorized by K.S.A. 21-6703, and amendments thereto or for crimes 
committed on or after July 1, 1993, a presentence investigation report as provided in 
K.S.A. 21-6813, and amendments thereto, the trial judge may order the defendant 
committed for mental examination, evaluation and report. If the defendant is convicted of 
a felony, the commitment shall be to the state security hospital or any suitable local 
mental health facility. If the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor, the commitment 
shall be to a state hospital or any suitable local mental health facility. If adequate private 
facilities are available and if the defendant is willing to assume the expense thereof, 
commitment may be to a private hospital. A report of the examination and evaluation 
shall be furnished to the judge and shall be made available to the prosecuting attorney 
and counsel for the defendant. A defendant may not be detained for more than 120 days 
under a commitment made under this section." 
 
Preservation 
 
 
Hilyard did not raise this issue below. She neither requested a mental evaluation 
under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3429 nor did she object to the lack of such an evaluation. 
Generally, this court will not consider legal theories not raised in the court below. State v. 
 
25 
 
 
Perkins, 310 Kan. 764, 768, 449 P.3d 756 (2019). But Hilyard now argues this court can 
reach the issue for the first time on appeal because the failure to do so would lead to the 
denial of a fundamental right. In so arguing, she effectively claims our court should apply 
a discretionary exception to the preservation rule. This court will sometimes review 
unpreserved claims when:  (1) "The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law 
arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case"; (2) consideration of 
the question is "necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of 
fundamental rights"; or (3) the judgment of a trial court should be upheld on appeal as 
"right for the wrong reason." State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043, 350 P.3d 1068 
(2015).  
 
Here, the second factor applies, as we agree a fundamental right is implicated. We 
choose to exercise our discretion to consider Hilyard's issue. Therefore, it is under the 
second exception we now review her claim.   
 
Standard of Review 
 
 
A district court's decision on whether to order an evaluation under K.S.A. 2021 
Supp. 22-3429 is reviewable for abuse of discretion. State v. Evans, 313 Kan. 972, 992, 
492 P.3d 418 (2021). 
 
Discussion 
 
 
K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3429 provides, in part, "[a]fter conviction and prior to 
sentence and as part of the presentence investigation authorized by K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 
21-6703 . . . the trial judge may order the defendant committed for mental examination, 
 
26 
 
 
evaluation and report. If the defendant is convicted of a felony, the commitment shall be 
to the state security hospital or any suitable local mental health facility."  
 
 
Then, if the report of the examination authorized by K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3429 
shows  
 
"the defendant is in need of psychiatric care and treatment, that such treatment may 
materially aid in the defendant's rehabilitation and that the defendant and society are not 
likely to be endangered by permitting the defendant to receive such psychiatric care and 
treatment, in lieu of confinement or imprisonment, the trial judge shall have power to 
commit such defendant to:  (1) The state security hospital or any county institution 
provided for the reception, care, treatment and maintenance of mentally ill persons, if the 
defendant is convicted of a felony." K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3430.  
 
 
In Evans, the defendant went a step further than Hilyard by filing a request for a 
mental evaluation under K.S.A. 22-3429. The district court considered the motion but 
denied it. Evans argued the trial court needed to explain its reason for denying the request 
and its failure to do so constituted an abuse of discretion.  
 
 
Our holding in Evans was clear:  
 
 
"Under Evans' reasoning, mental evaluations would be the rule, and not ordering 
them would be an exception subject to close appellate scrutiny. In practical effect, Evans 
asks this court to establish a rule that all requests for presentencing mental evaluations 
must be granted unless the trial court can state some compelling reason not to grant the 
request. We decline to impose such a burden on sentencing courts. No such rule is 
contained in the statutory language, and such a rule would be contrary to the plain 
language of the statute, which says that "the trial judge may order the defendant 
committed for mental examination, evaluation and report." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3429. 
 
27 
 
 
 
 
"The statutory evaluation scheme is clearly permissive, and it is the defendant's 
burden to persuade a sentencing court that a mental examination serves the interests of 
justice. When a party presents no facts and makes no argument to support its request for 
relief, an issue may be deemed abandoned. Furthermore, . . . surely Evans had some 
burden to establish a record of her argument and the findings that led to its rejection. . . .  
 
 
"Simply asserting that the trial court denied a request does not elevate an issue to 
the status of preserved for appeal. . . .  
 
"Here, Evans never stated any grounds to the trial court why it should grant her 
request for a mental health evaluation. She created no record in support of her motion, 
and she essentially abandoned the argument below. For these reasons, this issue fails to 
present reversible error." (Emphasis added.) Evans, 313 Kan. at 992-93. 
 
Hilyard did not request a mental examination, let alone meet her burden to 
persuade the sentencing court to order a mental examination. The statute imposes no 
affirmative duty for courts to raise this issue sua sponte and whether to do so is clearly 
discretionary. There is no indication the sentencing judge was unaware of this discretion. 
There is no error. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Hilyard is not due the relief she now seeks. There was sufficient evidence to 
support the jury's finding of premeditation, no jury instruction error, and no prosecutorial 
error. Her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly preserved. The trial 
court did not abuse its discretion in denying her request for a mental health evaluation. 
 
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.