Opinion ID: 6105526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: P1/21—Severance

Text: In our previous decision, we concluded the district court erred by failing to sever the defendants' guilt phase trials under Kansas law. R. Carr I, 300 Kan. at 97; J. Carr, 300 Kan. at 356. This holding was not disturbed by the United States Supreme Court's subsequent opinion in Kansas v. Carr. As such, it is now the law of the case for purposes of this appeal. State v. Cheeks, 313 Kan. 60, 66, 482 P.3d 1129 (2021) (Under the law of the case doctrine, when a second appeal is brought to this court in the same case, the first decision is the settled law of the case on all questions involved in the first appeal, and reconsideration will not normally be given to such questions.). J. Carr argues this state-law error continued into the penalty phase. We agree. See R. Carr II, 314 Kan. at ___, slip op. at 58. But the State carried its burden to demonstrate the error was harmless and, therefore, it does not require reversal standing alone. There is no reasonable probability the error affected the jury's ultimate conclusion regarding the weight of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, i.e., the death sentence verdict. See 314 Kan. at ___, slip op. at 61-62 (reasoning the trial record and the United States Supreme Court's conclusion that antagonistic aspects of defendants' mitigation cases did not influence the jury demonstrated the state-law severance error was harmless).