Case Title: State v. Warren

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2015-08-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 107,159 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
CEDRIC WARREN, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
1. 
 
An appellate court reviews a district court's decision to deny a motion for mistrial 
for an abuse of discretion.  
 
2. 
 
A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is (1) arbitrary, fanciful, or 
unreasonable; (2) based on an error of law; or (3) based on an error of fact.  
 
3. 
 
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 one or both of 
the parties. When evaluating a motion for mistrial, the district court must take the first 
step of deciding whether the prejudicial conduct created a fundamental failure in the 
proceeding. If so, the district court's second step is to decide whether the prejudicial 
conduct made it impossible to continue the proceeding without denying the parties a fair 
trial, i.e., the prejudice could not be cured or mitigated through jury admonition or 
instruction. 
 
2 
 
 
 
4. 
 
A district court's denial of a request for a new trial based on newly discovered 
evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. 
 
5. 
 
In Kansas, the appendix to an appellate brief is for the court's convenience and is 
not a substitute for the record itself. The appellate court will not consider appended items 
which are not found in the appeal record. 
 
6. 
 
When determining whether a new trial is warranted on the basis of newly 
discovered evidence, the court considers whether:  (1) the new evidence could not, with 
reasonable diligence, have been produced at trial; and (2) the evidence is of such 
materiality that it would be likely to produce a different result upon retrial.  
 
7. 
 
An appellate court will not reassess a district judge's determination of credibility at 
a motion for a new trial hearing. 
 
8. 
 
K.S.A. 22-3204 provides that a district court may order a separate trial for any one 
defendant when requested by such defendant or by the prosecuting attorney, and the 
requesting party has established there would be actual prejudice if a joint trial occurred. 
The existence of antagonistic defenses is a compelling ground for severance. But a trial 
court's denial of a motion to sever under K.S.A. 22-3204 will be reversed only when a 
clear abuse of discretion is shown. 
 
 
3 
 
 
 
9. 
 
The cumulative error doctrine does not apply where the record fails to support 
more than one of the errors raised on appeal by the defendant. 
 
10. 
 
Kansas' sentencing scheme for imposing a hard 50 life sentence in effect in this 
case, under which the factual findings necessary to impose the enhanced minimum 
sentence were made by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by a jury 
beyond a reasonable doubt, violated defendant's right to a jury trial under the Sixth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution. 
 
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; ROBERT P. BURNS, judge. Opinion filed August 28, 2015. 
Convictions affirmed, sentence vacated, and case remanded with directions. 
 
Patrick H. Dunn, of the Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the 
briefs for appellant.  
 
Sheryl L. Lidtke, chief deputy district attorney, argued the cause, and Jerome A. Gorman, district 
attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
JOHNSON, J.:  Charles Ford and Larry LeDoux were killed in a shoot-out during an 
attempted drug-house robbery. Brandon Ford, who survived the incident and who 
previously knew Cedric Warren, named Warren as one of the two shooters and later 
identified Warren's codefendant, Dominic Moore, as the second killer. Warren and Moore 
were tried together, and a jury convicted Warren of one count of premeditated first-
degree murder, one count of intentional second-degree murder based on an aiding and 
abetting theory, and one count of attempted premeditated first-degree murder. The district 
4 
 
 
 
court imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 50 years (hard 50 life sentence) for 
the first-degree premeditated murder conviction.  
 
On direct appeal to this court, Warren argues that (1) the district court violated his 
right to an impartial jury by denying his motion for a mistrial after a potential juror's 
comments irreparably tainted the jury pool; (2) the district court violated his right to an 
impartial jury by denying his motion for mistrial after a State's witness made improper, 
prejudicial comments; (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial 
based on newly discovered evidence; (4) the district court erred in denying his motion to 
sever his trial from Moore's trial, based on antagonistic defenses; (5) the district court 
denied his constitutional rights by instructing the jury that it could return a verdict of 
guilty upon proof of any element of the charged offense, rather than proof of each 
element of the charged offense; (6) cumulative error denied him a fair trial; (7) the hard 
50 sentencing scheme is unconstitutional; (8) his hard 50 sentence is illegal; and (9) the 
district court erred by ordering lifetime postrelease supervision.  
 
Finding no reversible error, we affirm Warren's convictions. But pursuant to 
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S.___, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160-63, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 
(2013), and State v. Soto, 299 Kan. 102, 124, 322 P.3d 334 (2014), we must vacate the 
hard 50 life sentence and remand the case to the district court for resentencing. 
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 
 
 On February 13, 2009, Brandon, Charles, and Larry spent most of the day at a 
house in Kansas City, Kansas, which was used by Charles and Larry to facilitate their 
drug transactions. Charles was armed with a loaded nine millimeter Glock and Larry kept 
a loaded AK-47 within his reach, but Brandon was initially unarmed when two men came 
to the house that evening. 
5 
 
 
 
 
Although his description of the events changed several times prior to trial, one of 
Brandon's initial stories to the police had him walking toward the bathroom when two 
men entered the house, one of whom he knew as "Ced." As he entered the bathroom, 
Brandon said he heard someone say "where's the shit" or "give me the shit," immediately 
followed by gunshots. Brandon exited the bathroom and saw a short black male holding a 
gun, whereupon he ducked into a bedroom, locked its door, and retrieved a weapon. 
Brandon exchanged gunfire through the closed bedroom door with someone outside. 
After the shots subsided, Brandon looked out the window and saw two men running 
toward an SUV. Brandon exited through the bedroom window, ran to a nearby house, and 
asked the resident to call the police. 
 
When police arrived at the residence, they found Charles' body near the front door 
surrounded by several different types of cartridge casings and Larry's body in the dining 
room with .40 caliber Smith and Wesson spent cartridges scattered nearby. Police also 
discovered a locked bedroom door riddled with bullet holes. A police officer broke down 
the door and observed an open window in the bedroom. 
 
Although no weapons were found in the house, police recovered multiple gun 
magazines and a significant amount of ammunition. Police also discovered a black bag 
hidden inside a clothes dryer; the bag contained packets of cocaine. 
 
Brandon was transported to the police station and shown a line-up, from which he 
identified Warren as the individual he knew as "Ced." The day after the murders, police 
apprehended Warren and Moore at a house in Kansas City, Missouri. A search of the 
Missouri house revealed several weapons, including a Glock nine millimeter semi-
automatic handgun, and drugs, all hidden within an air duct. Brandon was later able to 
select Moore out of a line-up as the short black man he saw in the hallway. 
6 
 
 
 
 
Warren was charged with the premeditated first-degree murder of Larry; the 
intentional second-degree murder of Charles, based on an aiding and abetting theory; and 
the attempted premeditated first-degree murder of Brandon. At trial, Brandon testified 
that he was sitting in the living room when he saw Warren come up the stairs after 
entering the house. Brandon said that Warren went straight into the kitchen and began 
shooting at Larry. Brandon ran to the bedroom to retrieve a weapon; but he said that he 
was able to see Moore, through the cracked bedroom door, also come up the stairs after 
entering the house. Brandon admitted that his trial testimony was inconsistent with 
previous statements, wherein he said he was in the bathroom when shots were fired. 
Brandon was extensively cross-examined on his inconsistent testimony. 
 
A KBI firearms expert testified that the casings found at the crime scene came 
from three different guns, one of which was the Glock seized from the Missouri 
residence. Specifically, two cartridge casings found under Charles' body were fired from 
the Glock. A KBI forensic scientist testified that a sample taken from the Glock was 
consistent with Moore's DNA profile. The KBI firearms expert testified that the bullet 
recovered from Larry's body was a .40 caliber full metal jacket round, but he was unable 
to tie it to a particular spent cartridge or to identify the type of weapon from which it was 
fired. 
 
Warren presented two alibi witnesses in his defense. His stepmother, Nicole 
Carter, testified that on the night of the murders, Warren was at her house until 
approximately 11 p.m., when he left to go to a music show with his father. Warren's 
father, Cedric Toney, testified that he dropped Warren off at a friend's Kansas City, 
Missouri, house around midnight. The murders were alleged to have taken place around 
11 p.m. Moore did not present any evidence in his defense.  
 
7 
 
 
 
The jury convicted both defendants as charged. Warren filed a motion for new 
trial, which the district court denied. The State filed a motion for imposition of a hard 50 
sentence for Warren's first-degree murder conviction under K.S.A. 21-4635, which the 
district court granted. Warren's sentences for the two other convictions were ordered to be 
served concurrently with the hard 50 life sentence. Warren filed a timely appeal. 
 
MOTION FOR MISTRIAL BASED ON POTENTIAL JUROR'S STATEMENTS 
 
Warren's first issue concerns comments made by a member of the venire during 
voir dire. The potential juror, C.W., expressed fear over rendering a guilty verdict 
because the defendants had access to the juror questionnaires, which contained his 
personal information, specifically stating, 
 
"[E]very time we talk they flip through these papers. It's got my name on it, it's got where 
I work on it, it's got my family, it's got everything, and if I stand up in court and say hey, 
they're guilty, they're like, hey, that's number 4, that's [C.W.]. They know where I work, 
they know where I live, what if he gets mad? That's how I look at it."  
 
The prosecutor followed up by inquiring whether C.W.'s apprehension would 
interfere with his jury duty and C.W. responded, "Kind of, yeah, because if I stand up and 
say hey, you're guilty, they know my name, where I work and my family. That makes 
you feel kind of awkward, don't you think?" C.W. explained that even if the jury rendered 
a guilty verdict and the defendants went to jail, nevertheless "[t]hey know people. People 
know people." 
 
 
Thereafter, the district court conducted a bench conference at which defense 
counsel requested a mistrial, arguing that the jury pool had been "poisoned at this point 
beyond—possibly beyond salvation." The prosecutor argued that any possible prejudice 
could be cured by informing potential jurors that while the defendants could review the 
8 
 
 
 
questionnaires during jury selection, they did not have access to the questionnaires during 
the trial. The district court took the motion for mistrial under advisement and thereafter 
provided the following instruction to the jury pool: 
 
 
"All right. I guess based upon [C.W.'s] comments, there's I wanted to clarify 
things. Obviously, this is a serious case and there are serious charges, here. As the 
defendants sit here, they are presumed to be innocent. The State has the burden to prove 
their guilt beyond every reasonable doubt as to the elements with which they are charged. 
It is also their right to have a jury trial, and that is why all of you have been summoned in 
here to come down here and go through this process. That's why I've asked you questions, 
Miss Lidtke has asked you questions and counsel will ask you questions.  
 
 
"The questionnaires that he referred to are simply in order to try to speed up the 
process as opposed to questioning each of you individually. These questionnaires are 
used in every trial that we conduct here in Wyandotte County, they have been used for 
many years, and it's the best possible way that we have come up with to expedite the 
process as much as we possibly can.  
 
 
"I understand that there's concerns about your names being on there and 
information, but those questionnaires are not kept by anyone but the Court. They are 
collected and destroyed. There is nothing that anyone—the attorneys, the defendants, 
anyone else will have any information regarding anything what is on those 
questionnaires. But that is the process that we have, that is the process that we use in 
every jury trial, whether it's a civil trial or a criminal trial, so with that, Miss Lidtke, let's 
move on."  
 
Despite the district court's instruction, C.W. still expressed doubt over whether he 
could return an appropriate verdict. Consequently, the prosecutor moved, without 
objection from defense counsel, to strike C.W. for cause. The district court took the 
motion to strike under advisement.  
 
9 
 
 
 
 
Voir dire thereafter continued without any other potential juror expressing any 
safety concerns. Of note, at the close of her voir dire examination, the prosecutor 
specifically asked the jury pool if there was anything else that needed to be addressed or 
considered when determining whether a potential juror should serve on the jury. None of 
the potential jurors expressed any concerns about their safety or the defendants having 
access to their personal information. Similarly, at the close of Warren's voir dire 
examination, defense counsel specifically gave the jury pool the opportunity to discuss 
anything that they thought would prevent them from acting as fair and impartial jurors, 
but none responded. 
 
The district court subsequently granted the prosecutor's motion to strike C.W. for 
cause but denied the defendants' motion for mistrial, finding that while the jury pool may 
have visibly reacted to the potential juror's comments, "the record should be perfectly 
clear no one was nodding their head in agreement, no one was raising their hand to come 
forward, no one anticipated any further questions when the broadest possible question 
was asked, is there anything we should know about?" The district court found that if any 
member of the jury pool had concerns for their safety, or believed such concerns would 
prevent them from serving as a fair and impartial juror, they had ample opportunity to 
express their concerns. The district court therefore concluded that a mistrial was not 
appropriate. 
 
Warren claims on appeal that C.W.'s comments irreparably tainted the jury pool 
and the district court's curative instruction did not purge the taint.  
 
Standard of Review 
 
We review a district court's decision denying a motion for mistrial for an abuse of 
discretion. State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405, 442, 324 P.3d 1052 (2014). A district court 
10 
 
 
 
abuses its discretion if its decision is (1) arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) based on 
an error of law; or (3) based on an error of fact. State v. Waller, 299 Kan. 707, 722, 328 
P.3d 1111 (2014).  
 
Analysis 
 
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. When evaluating a motion for 
mistrial under this provision, the district court must take the first step of deciding whether 
the prejudicial conduct created a fundamental failure in the proceeding. If so, the district 
court's second step is to decide whether the prejudicial conduct made it impossible to 
continue the proceeding without denying the parties a fair trial. Armstrong, 299 Kan. at 
441-42. Under the second step, the court considers whether the conduct caused prejudice 
that could not be cured or mitigated through jury admonition or instruction, resulting in 
an injustice. State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 551, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. 
Ct. 1594 (2012).  
 
 
 
The question of whether a fundamental failure in the proceeding existed "varies 
with the nature of the alleged misconduct, such as whether the allegation is based on the 
actions of a witness, the actions of a bystander, prosecutorial misconduct, or evidentiary 
error." 292 Kan. 541, Syl. ¶ 4. Here, we are dealing with a potential juror's actions in 
expressing fear of retribution from the defendants. Although we have yet to address the 
precise issue presented here, we have considered cases involving a potential juror's 
prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury pool.  
 
For example, in State v. McCorgary, 224 Kan. 677, 687, 585 P.2d 1024 (1978), a 
potential juror, who also happened to be the defendant's cousin, "expressed a strong 
11 
 
 
 
feeling in front of other prospective jurors that what she had read in the paper about these 
murders was true." The potential juror was excused from service, but the defendant 
moved for a mistrial before voir dire was completed. The motion was denied, but the jury 
was instructed to disregard statements by prospective jurors and to not consider what they 
may have read in newspapers. On appeal, we held that the district court did not abuse its 
discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial because there was no evidence that the 
defendant's rights had been substantially prejudiced. 224 Kan. at 687. 
 
Similarly, in State v. Mayberry, 248 Kan. 369, 380, 807 P.2d 86 (1991), 
disapproved on other grounds by State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 144 P.3d 647 (2006), the 
defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon 
a potential juror's statement that he knew about the defendant from his previous 
conviction. The juror was excused for cause, and the district court instructed the jury to 
disregard any information concerning the case other than the evidence presented at trial. 
Once again, we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 
motion for mistrial because there was no showing of substantial prejudice to the 
defendant's right to a fair trial. 248 Kan. at 381.  
 
More recently, in State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131, 322 P.3d 353 (2014), a 
potential juror, during voir dire, disclosed that she had heard that the murder case was 
gang related. Prior to voir dire, the district court had granted a motion in limine 
precluding any evidence of gang membership during the trial. The defendant moved for a 
mistrial based on a violation of the order in limine and because the jury panel was 
allegedly tainted. The district court denied the motion for mistrial. Citing cases from 
other jurisdictions dealing with prospective jurors' prejudicial comments during voir dire, 
we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for 
mistrial because there was no prejudice to the other jury members. 299 Kan. at 146. We 
reasoned:   
12 
 
 
 
 
"The juror mentioned gang involvement only in passing, and the topic was not brought up 
again. The defense did not ask for permission to conduct an examination of the jury for 
prejudice and did not request an instruction directing the jury to disregard unsworn 
statements by jury members. Furthermore, the defense did not seek to strike the juror in 
question for cause." 299 Kan. at 146.   
 
On the other side of the argument, Warren points to State v. Yurk, 230 Kan. 516, 
638 P.2d 921 (1982). There, during the course of an aggravated robbery trial, a juror read 
a newspaper article, which revealed that Yurk had three prior convictions related to 
larcenous activities. The juror initially stated that his ability to be fair and impartial 
would be affected by the newspaper article, explaining "'the main thing that bothered me 
were the other charges that had been filed against the man and the convictions.'" 230 Kan. 
at 520. However, under further questioning by the trial judge, the juror stated he could 
render a fair decision, prompting the trial court to deny the defense motion for mistrial 
and to proceed with the trial. The Yurk majority found that the district court erred in 
denying the mistrial and continuing the trial because the single juror involved admitted 
that he was adversely influenced by the knowledge of defendant's prior convictions, and 
the juror's subsequent assurances of fairness could not protect the defendant's right to a 
fair trial. 230 Kan. at 523-24.  
 
The Yurk court was concerned with the impartiality of a single juror who 
improperly read forbidden and prejudicial information about defendant's prior 
convictions during the course of the trial and admitted that the information bothered him. 
Here, we have no evidence that the impartiality of any sitting juror was actually 
prejudiced. Rather, Warren surmises that the actual jurors might have been adversely 
affected by overhearing the comments of an excused potential juror, notwithstanding the 
total absence of any direct statements of such influence. In other words, our circumstance 
more closely resembles that in McCorgary, Mayberry, and Betancourt, where we found 
13 
 
 
 
the respective jury pool was not tainted by a venireperson's prejudicial comment and, 
consequently, no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of a mistrial.  
 
 
In this case, the district court noted that no one in the jury pool appeared to agree 
with C.W.'s comments and that no one expressed any similar personal safety concerns 
when asked if there was anything the parties or court should know about. Pointedly, 
Warren's counsel did not request an individual polling of the jury pool to investigate the 
existence of any prejudice. In short, there is no evidence of record indicating that the jury 
pool was, in fact, prejudiced by C.W.'s comments. Therefore, we conclude that the 
district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that C.W.'s comments did not 
constitute a fundamental failure in the proceedings. 
 
Notwithstanding the foregoing holding, we pause to note that the district court in 
this case took the appropriate curative and mitigation measures to assure that Warren 
suffered no injustice from C.W.'s remarks. Warren's assertion that United States v. Blitch, 
622 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2010), required the district court to sua sponte poll the jury pool is 
unavailing because of the factual distinction that the persons expressing personal safety 
fears in Blitch actually sat as jurors in the case. Our circumstance is more analogous to 
that in United States v. Small, 423 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2005), where a venireperson 
expressed doubt as to his impartiality because of safety concerns based on the number of 
marshals present in the courtroom. The district court denied a defense motion for mistrial 
but explained to the jury pool that the number of marshals was due to the number of 
defendants, not to concerns about potential violence. The Small Court upheld the denial 
of defense counsel's mistrial motion, finding that "[a]ny prejudice that may have resulted 
from the statement of the venireperson was adequately addressed by the district court's 
explanation of the presence of the marshals in the courtroom." 423 F.3d at 1180. Here, 
the district court adequately explained the use of the jury questionnaires. 
 
14 
 
 
 
In short, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 
Warren's motion for mistrial. 
 
  
MOTION FOR MISTRIAL BASED ON WITNESS' TESTIMONY 
 
Warren similarly argues that the district court violated his right to an impartial jury 
by denying his motion for mistrial after a State's witness, Detective Brian Block, testified 
that he knew Warren and his associates. Warren claims that because the jury "entered the 
trial with safety concerns raised by [C.W.] regarding the defendants and their friends, 
such an answer undoubtedly aggravated these concerns." We disagree, discerning no 
fundamental failure in the proceedings.  
 
Standard of Review 
 
We apply the same standard of review and legal framework as applied to Warren's 
first issue, namely whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion 
for a mistrial. See Armstrong, 299 Kan. at 442. 
 
Analysis 
  
 
During the trial, Detective Block, in explaining why he placed Warren in a photo 
line-up after Brandon identified one of the shooters as "Ced," stated that he was "familiar 
with Cedric Warren and his associates." Warren's defense counsel thereafter moved for a 
mistrial, arguing that the jury now believed that the police were familiar with his client 
and his "associates," which made it sound like Warren was in some sort of "syndicate." 
The district court overruled the motion, but stated, "Let's limit what's talked about to just 
Cedric Warren. He's established he knew him so he put him in there. I don't think he 
should state with associates or any connotation that might have."  
 
15 
 
 
 
On appeal, Warren argues that the jury had already been tainted by C.W.'s 
comments that the defendants "know people. People know people." Warren claims this 
taint was exaggerated by Block's reference to Warren "and his associates." Warren also 
asserts that Block's comment carried the unnecessary implication that "Warren was a 
dangerous gang member."  
 
In State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 207 P.3d 208 (2009), the defendant was 
charged with two counts of felony murder after he and three others made plans to rob a 
drug house. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a pretrial motion in limine to prevent 
introduction of evidence about his involvement with gangs, arguing that such evidence 
was immaterial, irrelevant, and inadmissible. The State agreed that it would not offer any 
evidence of the defendant's gang affiliation, and the district court sustained the motion. 
At trial, the lead detective on the case, in testifying about her efforts to locate the four 
suspects, mentioned "gang officers" before defense counsel interrupted with an objection. 
The defendant then moved for a mistrial, but the district court overruled the motion, 
finding that the State did not design its question to elicit a response about gangs and 
thereafter instructed the jury to ignore the officer's response that a gang unit was asked to 
investigate because neither the State nor the witness was suggesting the defendant was 
affiliated with a gang. 
 
On appeal, this court held that the defendant could 
 
"demonstrate no substantial prejudice from Bachman's brief reference to 'the gang 
officers.' Even if witness preparation and the detective's experience—along with the fact 
that this detective sat at counsel table during trial and had been present when the 
admonition was given to other witnesses—should have prevented the reference, it was 
innocuous. We are confident that it did not create an unduly prejudicial impression that 
Ransom was involved in a gang or gang activity. Indeed, the district judge's admonition 
was emphatic in dispelling any weak association that could have arisen in the minds of 
16 
 
 
 
jurors. As it happened, Ransom may have received a great deal more in the way of a 
court endorsement because of the detective's mistake than most criminal defendants have 
a right to expect." 288 Kan. at 715. 
 
In the present case, Block's reference to Warren "and his associates" is even more 
isolated and innocuous than Ransom's gang reference. Granted, the district court in this 
case did not provide a cautionary instruction to the jury, but on the other hand, the 
detective was not laboring under a limine order prohibiting the mention of the defendant's 
associates.  
 
Moreover, as the State points out, another witness in this case, Detective Dion 
Dundovich, specifically testified, without objection, that at the time of the murders, he 
was assigned to the FBI Violent Crime Gang Task Force. Dundovich explained that he 
was contacted to assist with the present case because he was familiar with Warren based 
on his association with a gang called "the Mob." Even though Dundovich testified after 
Block, Warren did not object to his testimony or move for a mistrial. In addition, Warren 
does not argue, on appeal, that Dundovich's testimony was prejudicial or aggravated the 
alleged prejudice caused by Block's testimony. 
 
In short, Block's brief reference to "his associates" did not constitute a 
fundamental failure in the proceedings and the district court did not abuse its discretion in 
denying the motion for a mistrial. 
 
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 
 
Next, Warren argues the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion 
for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. In the alternative, Warren argues that 
the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his 
motion for a new trial. 
17 
 
 
 
 
Standard of Review 
 
A district court's order denying a request for a new trial based on newly discovered 
evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Moncla v. State, 285 Kan. 
826, 839, 176 P.3d 954 (2008). Judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if the 
action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law; or (3) is 
based on an error of fact. Waller, 299 Kan. at 722. Warren bears the burden of 
demonstrating an abuse of discretion. See State v. Laurel, 299 Kan. 668, 676, 325 P.3d 
1154 (2014).  
 
Analysis 
 
Warren argues that new evidence, by way of two letters and an affidavit attached 
to his brief, entitled him to a new trial. At the outset of our analysis, we note that the 
letters and affidavit were appended to Warren's brief but were never formally introduced 
as evidence in the proceedings below or added to the record. Therefore, our analysis is 
limited to defense counsel's proffer regarding the letters and affidavit, which occurred 
prior to sentencing, when the district court took up the motion for new trial. See Kansas 
Supreme Court Rule 6.02(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. Rule Annot. 41) ("The appendix is for the 
court's convenience and is not a substitute for the record itself."); Edwards v. Anderson 
Engineering, Inc., 284 Kan. 892, Syl. ¶ 1, 166 P.3d 1047 (2007) ("The court will not 
consider appended items which are not found in the appeal record."). 
 
At the hearing, defense counsel explained that because he did not have the authors 
of the letters and affiant present to testify, he would represent, by way of proffer, that the 
two letters and affidavit were authored by inmates, who purported to be in jail with 
Brandon at various points in time during 2010 and with whom Brandon discussed the 
murders. The attorney claimed that one of the inmates stated that Brandon admitted that 
18 
 
 
 
Warren was not present on the night of the murders and did not commit the murders; and 
that another inmate stated that Brandon confessed to framing Warren for the murders. 
While defense counsel referenced the affidavit, its contents were not specifically 
proffered. The defense argued that the evidence constituted newly discovered material 
that warranted a new trial, or at least further exploration to determine whether the 
inmates' allegations were true. The district court denied the motion for new trial, finding:   
 
 
"As to the statements made by [Brandon] after his testimony, or to these other 
inmates at some point, I would concur with the State's argument that these are to be 
reviewed with caution. Obviously these inmates did submit affidavits, but there's nothing 
in there or anything that's been presented to this Court that finds them to be credible to 
the point that a new trial would be warranted on that basis."  
 
Warren first argues that given Brandon's lack of credibility, the district court 
abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial based on the allegations contained in 
the letters and affidavit. When determining whether a new trial is warranted on the basis 
of newly discovered evidence, the court considers whether:  (1) "the new evidence could 
not, with reasonable diligence, have been produced a trial," and (2) "the evidence is of 
such materiality that it would be likely to produce a different result upon retrial." Laurel, 
299 Kan. at 676.  
 
Here, the first factor is not at issue because the district court treated the letters and 
affidavit as newly discovered evidence but denied the motion for new trial based on the 
materiality of the evidence. Specifically, the district court determined that, as presented, 
the newly discovered evidence lacked sufficient credibility to warrant a new trial. In 
determining whether newly discovered evidence is material,  
 
"the district court must assess the credibility of the newly proffered evidence. See Cook, 
281 Kan. at 993; State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 363, 681 P.2d 612 (1984). Ordinarily, a 
19 
 
 
 
new trial is not warranted when the newly proffered evidence merely tends to impeach or 
discredit the testimony of a witness. Richard, 235 Kan. at 363; State v. Watson, 204 Kan. 
681, 685, 466 P.2d 296 (1970); State v. Ayadi, 16 Kan. App. 2d 596, 601-02, 830 P.2d 
1210, rev. denied 250 Kan. 806 (1991). But, even when the evidence tends to impeach 
the testimony of a witness, the presence or absence of corroborating evidence is another 
factor to consider in determining whether the newly discovered evidence is of such 
materiality that it is likely to produce a different result upon retrial. See State v. Norton, 
277 Kan. 432, 441-42, 85 P.3d 686 (2004); State v. Smith, 39 Kan.App.2d 64, 68, 176 
P.3d 997, rev. denied 286 Kan. 1185 (2008)." State v. Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. 525, 
540, 285 P.3d 361 (2012).  
 
Here, the State argued that the inmates' allegations were not credible, arguing that 
based on their pending charges, each inmate had a bias against the State. The district 
court apparently agreed, finding that there had been no showing of credibility with regard 
to the inmates' allegations.  
 
But Warren counters that the "district court lacked substantial competent evidence 
to find the submitted documentary evidence incredible" and that "[n]o reasonable person 
could possibly disregard the written evidence in this case without holding an evidentiary 
hearing." Warren points to specific allegations contained within the letters and affidavits 
as evidence of credibility. However, as discussed, those documents are not a part of the 
record, so their specific allegations cannot be considered on appeal in determining 
whether the district court abused its discretion. The burden is on the appellant to furnish a 
record that affirmatively shows prejudicial error, and without such a record, we presume 
the actions of the trial court were proper. State v. Goodson, 281 Kan. 913, 919, 135 P.3d 
1116 (2006).  
 
Nevertheless, evidence of bias and motive is a valid method of attacking 
credibility. State v. Ross, 280 Kan. 878, 886, 127 P.3d 249, cert. denied 548 U.S. 912 
20 
 
 
 
(2006) (Proof of bias is almost always relevant to the finder of fact and weigher of 
credibility.). Moreover, "[w]e do not reassess a district judge's determination of 
credibility at a motion for a new trial hearing. [Citation omitted.] Zero credibility means 
zero materiality and zero chance that the outcome of a retrial would be different." Laurel, 
299 Kan. at 676-77. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion 
in denying the motion for new trial based upon a finding that the newly discovered 
evidence was not credible. 
 
Moreover, even if the district court had conducted a hearing that established that 
Brandon had actually told inmates that Warren was not the shooter, that would not have 
established an effective recantation of Brandon's trial testimony. Recantation occurs 
when a witness formally or publicly withdraws or renounces prior statements or 
testimony. See Black's Law Dictionary 1295 (8th ed. 2004). Here, Brandon did not recant 
his prior testimony, but rather he just told different versions of what occurred. He did that 
prior to trial, and the defense vigorously cross-examined Brandon on the inconsistencies 
between his statements to police, his preliminary hearing testimony, and his trial 
testimony. That circumstance illustrates why evidence that merely impeaches a witness' 
trial testimony does not typically warrant a new trial. See Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. at 
540; see also Smith v. Wichita Transportation Corp., 179 Kan. 8, 21, 293 P.2d 242 (1956) 
(newly discovered cumulative evidence does not warrant new trial).  
 
A reasonable person could agree with the district court's determination that the 
proffered evidence was insufficiently material to warrant a new trial. Consequently, we 
find no abuse of discretion. 
 
21 
 
 
 
MOTION TO SEVER 
 
Warren claims that he and Moore had antagonistic defenses and the district court 
therefore erred in denying his motion to sever. Warren cannot clear the first hurdle; the 
two defenses were not antagonistic. 
 
 
Standard of Review 
 
A trial court's denial of a motion to sever under K.S.A. 22-3204 will be reversed 
only when a clear abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Winston, 281 Kan. 1114, 1130, 
135 P.3d 1072 (2006). The party claiming that a severance denial was error has the 
burden of establishing an abuse of discretion. State v. White, 275 Kan. 580, 589, 67 P.3d 
138 (2003). 
 
If the challenger establishes that the district court abused its discretion in refusing 
to sever a trial, the next step is to determine whether the severance denial resulted in 
prejudice. But the burden of demonstrating harmless error, i.e., a lack of prejudice, is on 
the party benefitting from the error. State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 95, 331 P.3d 544 (2014). 
 
 
Analysis 
 
K.S.A. 22-3204 provides, in relevant part, that "the court may order a separate trial 
for any one defendant when requested by such defendant or by the prosecuting attorney." 
Severance should occur when a defendant has established there would be actual prejudice 
if a joint trial occurred. State v. Davis, 277 Kan. 231, 239, 83 P.3d 182 (2004).  
 
Antagonistic defenses have been referred to as the "most compelling ground for 
severance." State v. Myrick & Nelms, 228 Kan. 406, 416, 616 P.2d 1066 (1980). 
However, a mere claim of antagonistic defenses is not enough. State v. Pham, 234 Kan. 
22 
 
 
 
649, 654, 675 P.2d 848 (1984). Instead, antagonistic defenses occur when "each 
defendant is attempting to convict the other" or "the defenses conflict to the point of 
being irreconcilable and mutually exclusive." State v. Anthony, 257 Kan. 1003, 1018, 898 
P.2d 1109 (1995). "[A] mere inconsistency in trial strategy does not constitute an 
antagonistic defense." State v. Aikins, 261 Kan. 346, 361, 932 P.2d 408 (1997), 
disapproved on other grounds by State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012). 
Similarly, presentation of evidence by one defendant that is inconsistent with the 
evidence presented by another defendant does not make the defenses antagonistic for 
purposes of severance. State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 520, 186 P.3d 713 (2008). Instead, 
"[b]efore defenses of codefendants will be declared antagonistic there must be a 
dichotomy, or near dichotomy, between the defenses. The classic example of intrinsically 
antagonistic defenses is where both defendants blame each other for the crime while 
attempting to defend against the State's case." Pham, 234 Kan. at 655.  
 
In his motion to sever, Warren alleged that Moore would blame him for the crimes 
charged in the complaint. The State objected to the motion to sever, arguing that Moore 
and Warren did not have antagonistic defenses and that judicial economy favored the 
cases being tried together. While Moore had initially filed a motion to sever, he later 
withdrew that motion and asserted that he preferred to have his case tried with Warren's. 
The district court denied the motion, finding that the defendants did not have antagonistic 
defenses and that the strength of evidence against Moore did not warrant severance.  
 
At trial, Warren presented two alibi witnesses and Moore did not present any 
evidence in his defense. During closing argument, Warren's trial counsel argued that 
Brandon was not a credible witness due to his conflicting and inconsistent testimony; that 
there was no physical evidence linking Warren to the crime scene; and that Warren had 
an alibi for the night of the murder. In other words, Warren's defense was that he was not 
in the drug house when the victims were shot.  
23 
 
 
 
 
Similarly, Moore's trial counsel attacked Brandon's testimony as incredible, i.e., 
Brandon's identification of Moore as the second shooter should not be believed. Further, 
Moore's attorney challenged the strength of the State's physical evidence linking Moore 
to the Glock and linking the crime scene shell casings to the Glock. In other words, 
Moore's defense was that he was not in the drug house when the victims were shot. 
 
Simply put, Warren has failed to make even a cursory showing that the defenses in 
this trial were antagonistic. Consequently, he has failed to meet his burden of establishing 
that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to sever his trial from that of his 
codefendant, Moore.  
 
JURY INSTRUCTION 
 
For the first time on appeal, Warren argues that the reasonable doubt instruction 
given to the jury in this case erroneously lowered the State's burden of proof and that 
such an erroneous instruction must be considered structural error. We rejected this 
argument in State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 299 P.3d 292 (2013). 
 
Standard of Review 
 
 
Warren did not object to the instruction below, therefore relief may only be 
granted if the instruction was clearly erroneous. See K.S.A. 22-3414(3). 
 
 
 
"To determine whether an instruction or a failure to give an instruction was 
clearly erroneous, the reviewing court must first determine whether there was any error at 
all. To make that determination, the appellate court must consider whether the subject 
instruction was legally and factually appropriate, employing an unlimited review of the 
entire record. 
24 
 
 
 
 
 
"If the reviewing court determines that the district court erred in giving or failing 
to give a challenged instruction, then the clearly erroneous analysis moves to a 
reversibility inquiry, wherein the court assesses whether it is firmly convinced that the 
jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred. The 
party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish the degree 
of prejudice necessary for reversal." State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, Syl. ¶¶ 4-5, 286 
P.3d 195 (2012). 
 
Analysis 
 
The instruction, which was identical to the pre-2005 version of PIK Crim. 3d 
52.02, stated, in relevant part:   
 
"If you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved 
by the State, you must find the defendants not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt as 
to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the State, you should find the 
defendants guilty." (Emphasis added.) 
 
Herbel considered this same instruction and opined that "[w]hile the older PIK 
instruction used in Herbel's trial was not the preferred instruction, it was legally 
appropriate." 296 Kan. at 1124. Subsequently, this ruling has been followed repeatedly. 
See, e.g., State v. Holt, 300 Kan. 985, 1006-07, 336 P.3d 312 (2014); Miller v. State, 298 
Kan. 921, 936-38, 318 P.3d 155 (2014); State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206, 299 P.3d 
309 (2013); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 98-99, 298 P.3d 333 (2013). Warren offers 
nothing new to compel a different result. Consequently, we hold that the reasonable 
doubt instruction given in this case was not clearly erroneous and Warren is not entitled 
to relief. 
 
  
25 
 
 
 
CUMULATIVE ERROR 
 
Alternatively, Warren argues that pursuant to the cumulative error doctrine he is 
entitled to a new trial. Even if an individual error is insufficient to support a reversal, the 
cumulative effect of multiple errors may be so great as to require the reversal of a 
defendant's conviction. State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553, 243 P.3d 683 (2010).  
 
But "[c]umulative error will not be found when the record fails to support the 
errors raised on appeal by the defendant." State v. Cofield, 288 Kan. 367, 378, 203 P.3d 
1261 (2009). Even if the defendant establishes a single error, that will not constitute 
cumulative error. State v. Foster, 290 Kan. 696, 726, 233 P.3d 265 (2010). Quite simply, 
Warren has not established the applicability of the cumulative error doctrine in this 
appeal. 
 
SENTENCING ISSUES 
 
Finally, Warren raises three sentencing issues. First, he asks us to vacate his hard 
50 life sentence, arguing that K.S.A. 21-4635, the hard 50 statute in effect at the time of 
his sentencing, is unconstitutional because it denies a defendant his or her Sixth 
Amendment right to have a jury decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the facts 
necessary to increase the penalty for first-degree murder. Second, or alternatively, 
Warren claims that his hard 50 sentence is illegal because the district court failed to 
provide written findings of the statutory aggravating circumstances, as required by 
K.S.A. 21-4635. Last, Warren argues, and the State concedes, that the district court erred 
by ordering lifetime postrelease supervision, instead of parole. See K.S.A. 22-3717(b); 
State v. Clay, 300 Kan. 401, 418, 329 P.3d 484 (2014) (offenders sentenced for certain 
off-grid crimes subject to parole, not postrelease supervision). 
 
26 
 
 
 
Because we hold that Warren's sentence was imposed in violation of his 
constitutional right to a jury trial, and that such error was not harmless, we vacate his 
hard 50 sentence and remand for resentencing. That holding renders moot the remaining 
claims of sentencing error. See State v. Salary, 301 Kan. 586, 608-09, 343 P.3d 1165 
(2015) (declining to address additional sentencing issue as moot, once hard 50 sentence 
vacated for violating United States Constitution). 
 
Standard of Review 
 
Determining a statute's constitutionality is a question of law subject to de novo 
review. State v. Soto, 299 Kan. 102, Syl. ¶ 8, 322 P.3d 334 (2014).  
 
Analysis 
 
At the time of Warren's conviction, K.S.A. 21-4635 set forth a procedure whereby 
the State could seek enhancement of the minimum sentence for premeditated first-degree 
murder to 50 years before the convict is parole eligible. As a prerequisite to the enhanced 
sentence, the State had to prove and the sentencing court had to find the existence of one 
or more statutorily enumerated aggravating factors. K.S.A. 21-4635. In this case, the 
district court found that Warren knowingly or purposely killed or created a great risk of 
death to more than one person, K.S.A. 21-4636(b); that Warren committed the crime for 
the purpose of receiving money or other things of monetary value, K.S.A. 21-4636(c); 
and that Warren authorized or used another person to commit the crime, because a third 
person drove the getaway car, K.S.A. 21-4636(d).  
 
The statutory scheme then required the district court to determine whether there 
were any mitigating circumstances present, and, if so, whether they outweighed the 
aggravating factors. K.S.A. 21-4635(d). 
 
27 
 
 
 
At the sentencing hearing, Warren's counsel opposed the hard 50 sentence, arguing 
that the evidence was too conflicting to establish that Warren knowingly or purposefully 
killed or created a great risk of death to more than one person; that the evidence did not 
indicate that Warren was at the house for the purpose of stealing anything or robbing 
anyone; and that the statutory aggravating circumstance of using another person to 
commit the crime did not contemplate the use of a getaway driver. Warren's counsel did 
not argue any mitigating circumstances to weigh against the State's allegation of 
aggravating circumstances, albeit the district court determined that Warren's young age 
and his lack of criminal history constituted mitigating circumstances. 
 
Ultimately, the district court imposed a hard 50 life sentence for the premeditated 
first-degree murder conviction. The court found the existence of each of the aggravating 
circumstances alleged by the State and determined that the mitigating circumstances did 
not outweigh the aggravators.  
 
In Soto, which was issued after the briefs were filed in this case, we determined 
that Kansas' hard 50 sentencing statute was unconstitutional pursuant to the United States 
Supreme Court's ruling in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160-
63, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013).  Soto, 299 Kan. at 124.  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 be proved to a jury 
beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that our hard 50 procedure allowed a judge to find the 
existence of one or more aggravating factors, instead of requiring a jury to find those 
factors beyond a reasonable doubt, that procedure was unconstitutional as violative of the 
Sixth Amendment. Soto, 299 Kan. at 124. The same unconstitutional procedure was used 
in this case, i.e., the sentencing judge, not the jury, made the specific factual findings of 
aggravating circumstances and did the balancing against mitigating circumstances that 
resulted in an increased mandatory minimum sentence for Warren.  
28 
 
 
 
 
The State has acknowledged Soto's holding through a Supreme Court 6.09 (2014 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 52) letter; but it argues that Soto "left open the possibility that there 
could be rare cases where harmless error analysis would allow a Hard 50 sentence to 
stand." Granted, Soto did describe a harmless error test that would require the appellate 
court to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (1) the uncontroverted and overwhelming 
evidence supported the aggravating circumstance such that the jury would have found the 
existence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) "that no 
rational jury would have determined that any mitigating circumstances outweighed any 
aggravating circumstances." Soto, 299 Kan. at 126-27.  
 
Nevertheless, Soto declined to definitively decide whether a hard 50/Alleyne error 
could ever be harmless because even assuming the applicability of a harmlessness 
analysis, the error in Soto's case did "not come close to meeting that test." 299 Kan. at 
126. Specifically, Soto opined that even if overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence 
established the existence of an aggravating factor, this court could not conclude beyond a 
reasonable doubt, "that no rational jury would have determined that the mitigating 
circumstance outweighed the aggravating circumstance." 299 Kan. at 127; see also State 
v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 205, 322 P.3d 367 (2014) (assuming without deciding that 
harmlessness applies but concluding case did not present "one of the rare instances when 
a hard 50 Alleyne error can be declared harmless"). Likewise, the case before us does not 
justify our presuming to read the collective mind of a hypothetical jury to find, beyond a 
reasonable doubt, that it would have determined that mitigating circumstances did not 
outweigh aggravating factors. In other words, this is not one of the rare cases to which 
Soto alluded. 
 
The State contends that this case is different because Warren failed to present any 
evidence of mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing, so that no weighing was 
29 
 
 
 
necessary. But as we noted, the district court engaged in a balancing of the aggravators 
against the mitigators, which it determined to be Warren's young age and his lack of 
criminal history. Evidence of those mitigators was contained in the presentence 
investigation report (PSI), i.e., the record contains evidence of mitigating factors. A jury 
would have been free to consider those factors as well, and we continue to avoid 
predicting the result of that consideration. 
  
In conclusion, we hold that the sentencing scheme under which Warren was 
sentenced was unconstitutional, and we decline to declare that such unconstitutionality 
was harmless in this case. Warren's hard 50 sentence is vacated, and the matter is 
remanded for resentencing. 
  
Convictions affirmed, hard 50 life sentence vacated, and case remanded for 
resentencing.