1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 125,443

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

ZACHARY CHRISTIAN ARNOLD,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; DANIEL CAHILL, judge. Submitted without oral argument. 

Opinion filed August 30, 2024. Affirmed.

Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Kayla Roehler, deputy district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Kris W. 

Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.

Before PICKERING, P.J., MALONE and WARNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Zachary Arnold challenges his conviction for involuntary 

manslaughter, which arose after he engaged in a struggle with and ultimately shot and 

killed his father. Arnold argues that he should have been granted immunity under K.S.A. 

21-5231 because he was acting in self-defense. After carefully reviewing the transcript of 

the hearing on Arnold's request for immunity and the parties' arguments, we find that the 

district court's decision was based on the correct legal framework and supported by 

substantial competent evidence. We thus affirm Arnold's conviction. 
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 2019, Kansas City police officers were dispatched to a house based on 

a report that Chris Arnold, the defendant's father, had been shot and killed during an 

argument between the two men. (This opinion uses Zachary's and Chris' first names for 

purposes of clarity.) Zachary was eventually charged with second-degree murder for 

Chris' death.

Early in the case, Zachary filed a motion seeking immunity from prosecution 

under K.S.A. 21-5231(a), claiming he had acted in self-defense when he shot Chris—the 

motion that is the subject of this appeal. The district court held a hearing on this motion 

concurrently with Zachary's preliminary hearing. Zachary testified, as did a detective 

from the Kansas City Police Department. The parties also submitted several exhibits, 

including an audio recording of the 911 call Zachary made after Chris had been shot, 

Chris' autopsy report, a video of Zachary's interview at the police station, and 

photographs of the scene, though none of these exhibits are part of the appellate record. 

Zachary testified that the argument with his father stemmed from a recent incident 

between Zachary, who is a musician, and his music producer. Chris had become friends 

with the producer and had introduced him to Zachary, who signed with the producer's 

company. Zachary was scheduled to perform in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, in 

September 2019. But that night, the producer told Zachary that he would be unable to 

perform due to "a series of mishaps." Zachary initially thought the entire performance 

had been canceled. But he later saw "live streams from the venue of other artists," as well 

as other information that caused him to question the producer's statements. 

Zachary discussed the situation with Chris, who volunteered to talk with the 

producer. Sometime later, the producer invited Zachary to the recording studio. Zachary 

spent an evening at the studio and believed the misunderstanding was resolved.
3

The next day, Zachary updated Chris on what had happened. Chris, who was a 

captain with the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Department, had just gotten home from an 

off-duty shift as a security guard. Chris was wearing a "soft uniform," which included a 

holster with his service firearm. 

The conversation began amicably but escalated. Zachary asked Chris what he had 

said to the producer, and Chris said that he had told the producer "to make it sound like 

[Chris] had nothing to do with this" and "not to say anything to [Zachary]." Zachary was 

confused because he knew that Chris planned to talk to the producer; Zachary asked

Chris why he would act like he had nothing to do with it. 

At this point, according to Zachary, Chris "put his hand on his firearm and began 

stroking it with his right hand"—"mainly with the thumb and his forefingers" over the 

holster. Zachary testified that this gesture caused him to fear for his life. He stated that 

"multiple times in the past, during other arguments," Chris had pulled out a gun and 

pointed it "straight at" Zachary, forcing him to retreat to another room. Zachary explained 

that he did not call the police after these previous incidents because he did not believe it 

would have done any good; the police would not believe him because he had been in 

trouble before, and he had tried to call the police on Chris in the past, but they did not 

believe him after Chris told them he was with the sheriff's department. Zachary said that 

he had a complex relationship with his father. He described Chris as his confidante, but 

the two men also argued a lot; Zachary had been sent to a juvenile facility before because 

of physical altercations with Chris. Zachary explained that he believed the only reason 

Chris had not shot him in past arguments was because Chris had to retrieve his firearm 

from another room first—a protection that was not present during this conversation.

Zachary testified that after the first time Chris put his hand on his gun during their 

argument, Zachary had asked him to put the gun away. In response, Chris "[stuck] his 
4

arms up on the threshold of the kitchen." Zachary said that over the course of the 

argument, it would go "back-and-forth": Chris would drop his hands from the doorframe

and begin "re-stroking" his gun, Zachary would ask Chris to take his hand off his gun, 

Chris would put his hands back on the door frame for a bit, and then Chris would drop his 

hands again. Chris' body language concerned Zachary because Chris was "acting . . . very 

cold and [Zachary] wasn't able to read him very well." Zachary said he was frightened 

because he could not tell what Chris' "true intentions" were. 

At some point, the argument became physical. Zachary was about 10 feet from 

Chris, and Chris had his right hand on his gun in the holster. Zachary saw Chris "move[]

his left hand over to the holster" across his body. Zachary took two steps toward Chris, 

and Chris took a few steps back. Zachary said that he interpreted Chris' actions as 

"typical . . . for somebody who's trained to draw a firearm. They distance themselves, put 

their left hand on their holster, their right hand on their gun, begin to disengage the 

[lock], and pull." Zachary then "charged" Chris and covered his hands over the holster.

Zachary's testimony provided conflicting explanations for why he charged at his 

father. During his direct examination, he explained that he feared if the gun were to come 

out of the holster, Chris would shoot him. On cross-examination, however, Zachary

testified that when he put his hands over Chris', Chris was trying to keep the gun in the 

holster. 

As the struggle continued, Zachary disengaged the holster safety mechanism. He 

explained that he did this because he did not believe that he could keep the gun in the 

holster any longer. Zachary said "the gun just came straight out and was pointed straight 

at [him]." Zachary, who was 2 inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than Chris, said he 

tried to turn the gun away from him. Then "all of the sudden," Zachary heard a "pop,"

and Chris dropped to the floor. Zachary called 911 after Chris was shot. Chris died from a 

gunshot wound to the face.
5

Zachary testified that he loved and cared about his father, and he did not intend to 

shoot Chris or hurt him that night. But Zachary explained that he charged at Chris and 

tried taking control of the gun because he feared for his life. Zachary also testified that he 

had been diagnosed with several mental illnesses, including auditory hallucinations, 

paranoid schizophrenia, Asperger's syndrome, and ADHD. But he did not think these 

conditions affected what had occurred the night of Chris' death. 

The police detective who was dispatched to the scene and interviewed Zachary

also testified at the hearing. The detective explained that Zachary told him during the 

interview that his father's behavior was "kind of odd"; he also noted that Zachary told 

him that while he and Chris struggled over the gun, Chris tried to keep his gun in the 

holster while Zachary tried to get the gun out of the holster. But he stated that Zachary's

explanation during the interview was confusing. 

The detective testified that during the interview, he thought that Zachary "seemed 

very articulate at times for having been through what he had been through," though some 

of Zachary's behaviors were "odd." For example, Zachary spoke about Chris as though he 

were still alive, talking about the things they would do together when Chris retired. 

Zachary told the detective that he had been diagnosed with several mental health 

disorders, but the detective did not know whether Zachary's behavior that night was 

consistent with those diagnoses. 

The detective also testified about the nature of Chris' gunshot wound. The autopsy 

report stated that the bullet entered near the left side of the bridge of Chris' nose and 

lodged just under his right ear—a trajectory traveling left to right and slightly downward. 

And Chris' wound had stippling, which are burn marks from the gunpowder that comes 

out of the barrel after the gun is shot, which typically result from a shot fired within a 
6

two-foot range. The detective noted that he thought "[i]t would be odd for a firearm to be 

above the person and fired in a downward angle during a struggle."

The district court ultimately denied Zachary's request for self-defense immunity in 

a written ruling. While the court disagreed with the State's assertion that Zachary had 

been the initial aggressor in the altercation, it found that the evidence presented provided 

probable cause to believe Zachary was not justified in his use of force. 

In particular, the court did not find certain aspects of Zachary's explanation to be 

credible. The court questioned Zachary's testimony about Chris pointing guns at him 

during past arguments because Zachary had not previously told anyone about these 

events and his descriptions about when these occurred were vague. The court also found 

that the autopsy report's description of the gunshot wound conflicted with Zachary's 

testimony. It noted that the trajectory of the bullet could cause a "reasonable person [to]

entertain a belief that the gun was not discharged in the course of the struggle described 

by [Zachary]." Thus, "based on the evidence at the hearing, without any deference to the 

State, and considering the totality of the circumstances," the district court concluded that 

"there exists probable cause that [Zachary] was not justified in his use of deadly force."

The State's case against Zachary proceeded to trial. A jury found that the State had 

not shown that Zachary had committed second-degree murder, but the jury did find him 

guilty of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. Zachary was sentenced 

to 32 months' imprisonment (which he had nearly completed due to his pretrial detention) 

and 24 months' postrelease supervision. He appeals, asserting that he was entitled to 

immunity from prosecution since he acted in self-defense. 
7

DISCUSSION

Under Kansas law, a person is "justified in the use of deadly force" when they 

"reasonably believe[] that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent 

death or great bodily harm" to that person or to someone else. K.S.A. 21-5222(b). Courts 

have indicated that the use of force described in this statute includes both subjective and 

objective components. From a subjective standpoint, a defendant's use of deadly force is 

justified only if they "sincerely believed it was necessary to kill to prevent imminent 

death or great bodily harm to the defendant or a third person." State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 

403, 410, 462 P.3d 149 (2020). And objectively, the statutory justification only applies 

when "a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have perceived the use 

of deadly force in self-defense as necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily 

harm." 311 Kan. at 410-11.

A person who is justified in using force in self-defense under K.S.A. 21-5222 (and 

whose conduct meets other statutory requirements) is "immune from criminal prosecution 

and civil action" for that act. K.S.A. 21-5231(a). This statutory framework "provides not 

only a defense to criminal liability, but also complete immunity from criminal 

prosecution" and civil actions. State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643, 659, 479 P.3d 176 (2021).

When a defendant requests immunity under K.S.A. 21-5231, the State must "come 

forward with evidence" to show probable cause "that the defendant's use of force was not 

statutorily justified." 312 Kan. at 656. In doing so, the State must convince the district 

court that the evidence is "sufficient for a person of ordinary prudence and caution to 

conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of [the] defendant's guilt despite the claim of 

justified use-of-force immunity." 312 Kan. 643, Syl. ¶ 3. 

Practically speaking, this means the State must show probable cause that the use of 

force was either subjectively or objectively unreasonable. That is, the State must present 
8

evidence from which a reasonable person could believe that "the defendant did not 

honestly believe the use of force was necessary" or "a reasonable person would not 

believe the use of force was necessary under the circumstances." 312 Kan. 643, Syl. ¶ 4. 

In determining whether the State met its burden, the district court must "consider the 

totality of the circumstances [and] weigh the evidence before it without deference to the 

State." State v. Hardy, 305 Kan. 1001, 1011, 390 P.3d 30 (2017). 

The probable-cause burden imposed by K.S.A. 21-5231—like all probable cause 

determinations—is "substantially less [onerous] than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt 

required to obtain a guilty verdict." Thomas, 311 Kan. at 412. The State "does not need to 

prove that the defendant's use of force was not justified; it merely has to establish 

probable cause" that it was not. State v. Drake, No. 125,184, 2024 WL 657223, at *6 

(Kan. App. 2024) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 319 Kan. ___ (July 9, 2024). As 

with any probable-cause analysis, the process for determining whether the State has met 

this burden involves two steps. First, the district court must make findings of fact based 

on the evidence presented at the hearing and the parties' stipulations. State v. Collins, 311 

Kan. 418, 425, 461 P.3d 828 (2020); Thomas, 311 Kan. at 413. Second, the district court 

must draw a legal conclusion, based on the totality of the circumstances, as to whether 

the State has met its burden to show the case should go forward. Collins, 311 Kan. at 425; 

Thomas, 311 Kan. at 413. 

Appellate courts review the factual findings underlying a district court's ruling on 

self-defense immunity for substantial competent evidence, deferring to those findings if 

they are supported by legal and relevant evidence in the record. See Phillips, 312 Kan. at

656. We do not reweigh conflicting evidence or second-guess a district court's credibility 

assessments. Hardy, 305 Kan. 1001, Syl. ¶ 5. Because the district court's ultimate ruling 

as to whether immunity is warranted based on those facts is a legal conclusion, we review 

that conclusion de novo. Phillips, 312 Kan. at 656.
9

Zachary argues the district court committed a legal error by using an incorrect 

evidentiary lens during the immunity hearing. He asserts that despite the district court's 

language in its ruling, various aspects of the court's analysis show the court "functionally" 

viewed the evidence presented at the immunity hearing in the light most favorable to the 

State. Zachary points to three discussions by the district court—concerning the lack of 

evidence corroborating Zachary's testimony, Zachary's mental health, and the gunshot 

wound—and asserts that these discussions demonstrate that the court viewed the 

evidence and resolved all inferences in the State's favor. Zachary is correct that it is the 

responsibility of the State, not the defendant, to show probable cause that the defendant 

had not used force in self-defense within the meaning of K.S.A. 21-5222(b). See Phillips, 

312 Kan. at 656. But after reviewing the district court's ruling and the record, we disagree 

with Zachary's interpretation of the district court's statements.

Zachary first challenges the district court's explanation as to why it did not find his 

testimony to be credible. In its written ruling, the court noted that only Zachary and Chris 

were present during the struggle, so the court's assessment largely rested on whether 

Zachary's explanation was believable. The court opined that it might have been more 

inclined to believe Zachary's testimony if there were some corroborating evidence, such 

as a "video recording of the events and they supported [Zachary's] recitation of the 

events." But in the absence of any such evidence, the court observed that there were 

several reasons why it doubted Zachary's recounting of the struggle leading to Chris' 

death. For example, the court did not find Zachary's testimony about how Chris had 

purportedly pointed guns at him in past arguments to be credible, as Zachary had never 

told anyone about these incidents before and his descriptions of these incidents were 

vague.

Zachary asserts that the district court's statement that it may have believed 

Zachary's version of the events if there had been a video corroborating his testimony 

showed that the district court erroneously believed that it was Zachary—not the State—
10

who had to come forward with evidence to prove that he acted in self-defense. But this 

argument removes the district court's statement from its context. The district court did not 

rule that Zachary was required to come forward with evidence; instead, it ruled that 

Zachary's explanation of what had occurred was not credible and was not corroborated by 

any other evidence presented at the hearing. 

Next, Zachary argues that the district court's credibility assessment cannot stand 

because it was based in part on speculation regarding Zachary's mental condition the 

night of Chris' death. Zachary argues the district court should not have considered his 

mental health diagnoses to assess whether his perception that Chris posed a threat to his 

safety was reasonable. Zachary asserts that the State provided no evidence that his mental 

health influenced the incident. He also asserts that he had testified that he could usually 

read his father's social cues and that he did not believe his mental health diagnoses had 

any effect on what occurred. So, he concludes, the district court "once again showed 

deference to the State" by ignoring conflicting evidence.

This argument is also unpersuasive. There was extensive evidence presented at the 

immunity hearing related to Zachary's mental health on the night of Chris' death—largely 

through Zachary's own testimony. Zachary described his diagnoses and symptoms and 

admitted that those conditions were still affecting him (though he did not believe they had 

affected his actions that evening). The detective also testified that Zachary was behaving 

strangely during his interview later that night—indeed, Zachary's written argument 

following the immunity hearing asserted that his "untreated mental illness at the time of 

his police interview likely contributed to his responses to the police." While Zachary is 

correct that there was conflicting evidence presented regarding his mental state, the

record does not show that the district court ignored Zachary's explanation; it just found 

the other evidence more believable. Appellate courts do not reweigh these evidentiary 

assessments. Accord State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 548, 486 P.3d 606 (2021) (noting that 
11

a district court is not required to make particularized findings on the record when ruling 

on an immunity motion as long as it is apparent that it used the correct legal framework).

In his final argument, Zachary claims that the district court erred when it found 

Zachary's explanation of the events was inconsistent with "the nature of [Chris'] 

wound"—a gunshot wound to the face. Zachary asserts that the district court viewed the 

autopsy report in the light most favorable to the State because, other than showing the 

gun was pointed at Chris' face when it was fired, the report does not show whether 

Zachary fired that gun in self-defense. He argues that the district court could only reach 

that conclusion by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and 

ignoring any other inferences that could be drawn.

We disagree. There is a difference between viewing evidence in the light most 

favorable to the State and weighing the evidence and finding some—but not all—

evidence compelling. When courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

State, which a district court is not permitted to do at an immunity hearing, they may 

disregard conflicting evidence and focus on the evidence supporting only one outcome. 

See State v. Larsen, 317 Kan. 552, 563, 533 P.3d 302 (2023) (recognizing that reasonable 

fact-finders might have reached different conclusions under the facts, but a standard 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State focuses only on the evidence 

supporting the verdict). But that is not what happened here. Instead, the district court was 

faced with conflicting evidence regarding the events leading up to Chris' death, and the 

district court found the gunshot wound, which was known and described in the autopsy 

report, was inconsistent with Zachary's testimony. In other words, the district court 

weighed all the evidence and found some evidence more compelling and credible.

The detective testified at the immunity hearing that he had a hard time reconciling 

Chris' bullet wound—to the face and downward within close proximity—with Zachary's 

description of his struggle to keep the gun away from his father. While it may not have 
12

been physically impossible for an injury to occur in this manner, we agree with the 

district court that the nature of the gunshot wound did not fit well with Zachary's 

explanation. Its assessment is reasonable and supported by the evidence.

After reviewing the record and the parties' arguments, we find that the district 

court analyzed Zachary's request for immunity using the appropriate legal standard. The 

court considered all the evidence presented at the hearing and found some evidence and 

testimony to be more credible or compelling. And ultimately, the court found based on 

the evidence presented that the State had shown probable cause to believe that Zachary 

had not been justified in his use of force against Chris. We affirm this ruling. 

Before closing, we pause to note that this case demonstrates the important 

difference between immunity from prosecution based on self-defense under K.S.A. 21-

5231(a) and the assertion of self-defense as a defense at trial. Here, the district court 

found that Zachary was not entitled to immunity from prosecution because there was a 

reasonable question as to whether he had acted in self-defense, and we affirm that ruling. 

But this ruling does not prevent a defendant from claiming at trial that they acted in selfdefense and thus did not have the requisite mental state to commit the crime charged. 

Indeed, the jury at Zachary's trial heard the evidence and found Zachary was not guilty of 

second-degree murder or several other offenses, convicting him instead on the final 

lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. While Zachary was not entitled to 

immunity for his actions, the jury presumably took into account his explanation of what 

had occurred and his assertion that he acted in self-defense in reaching that conclusion.

The district court did not err when it denied Zachary Arnold's request for selfdefense immunity. We affirm its judgment.

Affirmed.