Opinion ID: 3161541
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kansas Court of Appeals

Text: On appeal to the KCA, Mr. Griffin asserted ten claims. Two are relevant to this appeal. First, Mr. Griffin asserted prosecutorial misconduct based on the prosecutor’s (a) repeated statements, largely during closing argument, that once Mr. Griffin aided and abetted the robbery, he was “in for a penny, in for a pound” on the attempted seconddegree murder, and (b) arguing facts not in evidence. Second, Mr. Griffin argued the government presented insufficient evidence of his intent to commit attempted second-degree murder. The substance of the argument, however, is more clearly understood as a challenge to the jury instructions. He contended the jury instructions allowed the jury to convict him of attempted second-degree murder based on his aiding and abetting the robbery. The jury should have been allowed, he said, to convict only if it found Mr. Griffin willfully and purposefully aided and abetted Mr. Franklin’s attempted second-degree murder. Mr. Griffin’s prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence claims challenged the proof that should be required for second-degree murder. Both claims depended on second-degree murder constituting a specific intent crime that cannot be established by reasonable foreseeability. The KCA rejected each of Mr. Griffin’s claims and affirmed his conviction and sentence. It concluded Mr. Griffin and Mr. Franklin were equally culpable under Kansas -6- aiding and abetting law because the attempted second degree murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the aggravated robbery.