Opinion ID: 3152697
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the venue instruction clearly erroneous?

Text: For Robinson to prevail on this claim, however, the court must be firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred, and Robinson has the burden of convincing the court. See Williams, 295 Kan. 506, Syl. ¶ 5. He argues that the forensic evidence does not support a finding that the deaths occurred in Johnson County. To the contrary, as it relates to Count III, the capital murder of Lewicka, the State presented compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence that Robinson killed Lewicka in her Johnson County apartment. Robinson leased an apartment for Lewicka at 901A Edgebrook in Olathe. Lewicka was residing at this location at the time of her disappearance around fall 1999. In September 1999, Robinson delivered a check for that month's rent to the property manager, Julie Brown, and informed her that he had vacated the apartment even though several months remained on the term of the lease. Brown later conducted a check-out 329 inspection of Lewicka's apartment and noticed she had left behind a fish tank, microwave, and table. A substantial portion of the dwelling was unkempt, but the two bedrooms had been cleaned meticulously. On October 12, 2000, law enforcement officers searched Lewicka's apartment for trace evidence. In the southwest bedroom, one of the rooms that had been cleaned meticulously, the officers found hundreds of small reddish-brown spots on the south wall that tested presumptively positive for blood. Subsequent testing confirmed the blood matched Lewicka's DNA. When law enforcement officers discovered Lewicka's body inside a metal drum at Robinson's Linn County property, she was partially clothed in a nightshirt. Law enforcement officers also recovered a pillow and pillowcase from inside the barrel that matched the pattern of Lewicka's bedsheets, which Robinson had since given to his paramour, Barbara Sandre. This circumstantial evidence lent further support to the State's theory that Robinson had killed Lewicka as she slept or lay in her bed at the Olathe apartment. Other than her body, there was little evidence connecting Lewicka's murder to Linn County. There was a small bloodstain on a roll of duct tape recovered from Robinson's Linn County trailer that matched Lewicka's DNA. Law enforcement officers also found several strips of duct tape inside the barrel containing Lewicka's body. However, this evidence also was consistent with the State's theory that Robinson killed Lewicka in Johnson County and transported her body to Linn County to conceal the crime. With regard to Count II, the capital murder of Trouten, Robinson is correct that the forensic evidence did not clearly establish the location of Trouten's murder. In fact, 330 during closing argument, the State argued that Robinson perhaps killed Trouten inside her room at the Guesthouse Suites in Lenexa or inside the trailer at his Linn County property but admitted the theories were speculative. If anything, the State's forensic evidence presented a more convincing case that Robinson killed Trouten inside his Linn County trailer because of the trace evidence identified at this location, including blood samples and a hair root matching Trouten's DNA. Robinson's argument in support of clear error focuses on the forensic evidence suggesting a greater probability that Robinson killed Trouten in Linn County than in Johnson County. Robinson's argument presumes incorrectly that the location of the murder alone is determinative of the venue question. However, K.S.A. 22-2603 provides that where two or more acts are requisite to the commission of any crime and such acts occur in different counties the prosecution may be in any county in which any of such acts occur. The existence of a common scheme or course of conduct connecting the murders is one of the acts requisite to the commission of capital murder under K.S.A. 213439(a)(6) as charged in Counts II and III. To the extent Robinson engaged in conduct within Johnson County that established or furthered the alleged common scheme or course of conduct, such evidence not only satisfies an element of the offense but also establishes Johnson County as an appropriate venue. At trial, the State presented evidence that Robinson employed a common scheme or course of conduct characterized by luring women to Johnson County, exploiting them financially or sexually, killing them and disposing of their bodies in a similar fashion, and engaging in fraud and deceit to conceal the murders. Given that Robinson resided in and ran his businesses out of Johnson County, it is not surprising that the State's evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that he carried out this common scheme or course of conduct almost exclusively within Johnson County. For example, Robinson lured Trouten from Michigan to Johnson County with offers of employment, travel, and other benefits. 331 To facilitate such luring, Robinson paid for Trouten to stay at the Guesthouse Suites in Lenexa; paid for a moving truck to transport Trouten's belongings from Michigan to Johnson County; and, after her arrival, stored Trouten's belongings in his Olathe storage unit and boarded her two dogs at an Olathe animal clinic. Robinson also employed fraud and deceit to conceal Trouten's murder as part of his common scheme and course of conduct. To facilitate the cover-up, Robinson disposed of Trouten's two dogs by reporting them to an Olathe animal control officer; moved Trouten's belongings out of her Lenexa hotel room; and made arrangements with a resident of Mexico, while she was visiting her son in Johnson County, to mail fraudulent letters to Trouten's family members postmarked from Mexico. Moreover, as to the other victims identified in the capital counts, Robinson carried out a substantial portion of his common scheme or course of conduct in Johnson County. For example, in luring Stasi, Robinson held himself out as a successful Johnson County businessman who had established a program to provide assistance to young women with babies. To successfully lure Stasi, he paid for her to stay at the Roadway Inn in Overland Park. To conceal her disappearance, Robinson fabricated an alibi and paid a third party to provide a false statement to Overland Park police consistent with it. At the same time, while residing in Johnson County, Robinson employed an adoption ruse to conceal the disappearance of Stasi's baby. To complete the scheme, Robinson had his brother execute fraudulent adoption paperwork at Robinson's Johnson County business office and pick up the baby at Robinson's home in Stanley. Robinson also engaged in a variety of conduct within Johnson County to lure and then exploit Sheila and Debbie Faith financially. The State's evidence demonstrated Robinson killed both victims to steal their Social Security benefit payments. To do so, 332 Robinson set up a private mailbox under their names in Olathe and submitted a change of address form to the SSA directing benefit checks to this Johnson County address. Robinson's common scheme and course of conduct also included the financial exploitation of Beverly Bonner and, later, the use of deceit to conceal her murder. As with the Faiths, Robinson set up a private mailbox in Olathe under Bonner's name. Bonner's alimony checks were mailed to this Olathe mailbox, and Robinson deposited them into joint bank accounts set up under his and Bonner's names. Robinson also used this mailbox to facilitate his fraudulent letter writing campaign aimed at Bonner's family. The State presented persuasive forensic and circumstantial evidence that Robinson killed Lewicka at her apartment in Johnson County. Furthermore, the State presented overwhelming evidence that Robinson carried out a substantial portion of the common scheme and course of conduct common to all six murders within Johnson County, where he lived and conducted business. Based on this evidence, Robinson has failed to firmly convince us that the verdict would have changed but for the instructional error. As such, the district judge's erroneous venue instruction does not constitute clear error. 12. CUMULATIVE ERROR—GUILT PHASE Robinson argues that the cumulative effect of the pretrial and guilt phase errors require the court to reverse all of his convictions. Legal Framework and Standard of Review Cumulative error, considered collectively, may be so great as to require reversal of a defendant's conviction. The test is whether the totality of the circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied him or her a fair trial. No prejudicial error may be found under the cumulative error doctrine if the evidence against the defendant is 333 overwhelming. State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, Syl. ¶ 9, 169 P.3d 1128 (2007). Moreover, this doctrine does not apply if no error or only one error supports reversal. See State v. Carter, 284 Kan. 312, 332, 160 P.3d 457 (2007). State v. Dixon, 289 Kan. 46, 71, 209 P.3d 675 (2009). This court utilizes a de novo standard when determining whether the totality of circumstances substantially prejudiced a defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial based on cumulative error. State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1056, 318 P.3d 1005 (2014). Did the Aggregate Effect of Errors Deny Robinson a Right to a Fair Trial? As we have already stated, Judge Anderson conducted proceedings with great deference toward and respect for Robinson's fair trial rights. The results speak for themselves. In a highly complex, capital trial that continued for weeks on end, we have detected only three errors. Robinson's two capital murder convictions, Counts II and III, were multiplicitous with each other, and his conviction for first-degree murder, Count V, was multiplicitous with the capital convictions. However, this had no effect on jurors, and our reversal of the second capital conviction and the first-degree murder conviction cures any prejudice. We also have ruled that the prosecutor made three isolated remarks that exceeded the scope of the evidence. Yet, the cumulative impact of the remarks was not prejudicial. Finally, the trial court's venue instruction was erroneous, but the overwhelming nature of the State's evidence established convincingly that this error did not affect the outcome of the proceedings. When considered together, the errors are negligible in comparison to the nature of these proceedings and the enormous weight of the evidence against Robinson. 334 Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find the cumulative effect of the errors did not substantially prejudice Robinson or deny him the right to a fair trial. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND—PENALTY PHASE The State's Case In the penalty phase, the State alleged the existence of one aggravating circumstance: That the defendant knowingly or purposely killed more than one person. The State asked the jury to consider all the guilt phase evidence presented during its casein-chief relevant to this aggravator in deciding the sentence. The Defendant's Case Robinson alleged the existence of several mitigating circumstances, including: 1. If not sentenced to death, the defendant will peacefully spend the rest of his life in prison. 2. The defendant is likely to make a satisfactory adjustment to prison life. 3. If the defendant is not sentenced to death, a term of imprisonment is sufficient to defend and protect the people's safety. 4. If the defendant receives a life sentence, he will be able to maintain a relationship with his wife, children, grandchildren and other family members. 5. Defendant's family will suffer grief and loss if he is executed. 6. The degree to which, if any, others may have participated in the crimes and share a degree of moral culpability or blame. 335 1. Maintaining family relationships and familial grief The defense called Nancy Robinson to testify in support of mitigating circumstances 4 and 5, maintaining family relationships if sentenced to life and familial grief if sentenced to death. Nancy testified that she met Robinson in 1963 in Oak Park, Illinois. They married several months later and moved to the Kansas City area in late 1963 or early 1964. Robinson and Nancy had four children. Nancy said Robinson played an important role in the lives of his children and actively participated in and attended their activities. Even when Robinson served time in state prison in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the children visited him and their relationship remained strong. All of Robinson's children grew to be productive and contributing members of their communities. Robinson was also involved in the lives of his grandchildren. Robinson's youngest daughter, Christy, had a daughter and younger son. Robinson was involved in the lives of both of Christy's children and babysat them on a regular basis while their parents were at work. Robinson shared a particularly close relationship with Christy's daughter, who spent time with Robinson every day. Robinson's arrest affected her the most because she viewed Robinson as a role model or idol. She became so upset that the family arranged special contact visits, with the approval of sheriff's department personnel, while Robinson was in jail awaiting trial. Christy's daughter continued to talk to Robinson by phone during trial. Nancy testified that the prospect of Robinson's execution has had a devastating impact on their entire family. If Robinson were sentenced to life imprisonment, Nancy said, the family would continue to maintain a relationship with him. Nancy, in particular, always stood by Robinson. She testified on his behalf when he was convicted of fraud in 336 Johnson County in 1986. She stayed with him after his theft conviction in Missouri and when he went back to prison after his probation was revoked. Despite Robinson's multiple, ongoing extramarital affairs, Nancy stayed in the relationship. Even Robinson's conviction for capital murder did not break their marriage. Despite everything, Nancy testified that she still shared a bond with Robinson and that it would continue if the jury spared his life. 2. Satisfactory adjustment to prison, community safety The defense offered the testimony of expert witnesses Mark D. Cunningham and Paul Delo in support of mitigating circumstances 1 through 3 (peaceful prison existence, satisfactory adjustment to prison life, and life imprisonment as sufficient to defend and protect the public). The defense retained Cunningham, a clinical and forensic psychologist, to conduct a risk assessment of Robinson and render an opinion on his future dangerousness in prison. The defense retained Delo, a retired prison warden and correctional consultant, to assess Robinson's propensity for violence in prison. Cunningham had testified as an expert on more than 150 occasions. He reviewed correctional records, information about the offenses of conviction, the presentence reports, and Robinson's criminal history and educational and medical records. Cunningham also interviewed Robinson's family members and correctional officials who supervised Robinson while in custody. Cunningham compared the case-specific facts he gathered from these records with risk assessment factors established in the field of forensic psychology and other statistical information on prison adjustment. Through this comparative analysis, Cunningham identified four key factors, in decreasing order of significance, supporting his opinion that Robinson would experience a positive, nonviolent adjustment in the prison system, 337 including: (1) his age; (2) his past behavioral history in custody; (3) correctional staff appraisals; and (4) contact with family and children.
Robinson was born on December 27, 1943, and was 58 years old at the time of trial. Cunningham identified studies showing a significant reduction in the risk of prison violence among offenders who are age 45 years or older, referring to this phenomenon as the aging effect. This aging effect is generally consistent with data among the general population that shows a decreasing tendency for violence with increased age. Cunningham noted that research confirms this aging effect still holds true and applies equally to offenders who commit violent crimes at an advanced age, such as in Robinson's case. Delo corroborated this testimony, confirming that as an inmate ages, the risk of violence decreases. He opined that an inmate's age is the most significant factor influencing propensity for violence.
Cunningham identified Robinson's past behavioral history in prison as the second risk assessment factor relevant to his analysis. Cunningham and Delo testified that an inmate's conduct during prior incarcerations is often an indicator of future behavior. Robinson served a 40-month term of imprisonment with Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) from 1987 to 1991. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Western Missouri Correctional Center for 22 months. Following his arrest in June 2000, Robinson was detained at the Johnson County jail for 22 months awaiting trial. Cunningham found it particularly relevant that Robinson served all of his time in custody after murdering 338 Stasi because this showed he was already prone to violence before entering the prison system. Robinson was not involved in any acts of serious violence during his 62-month stint in the state prison system or his 22-month stay in county jail. Cunningham found only a few minor disciplinary infractions in Robinson's record. First, in the Johnson County jail, Robinson was written up for bringing a salt shaker back to his cell, which he used to create a saltwater rinse for his sore throat. Second, at KDOC, Robinson received a written infraction for using a typewriter to draft 17 grievances that he distributed to other inmates. Finally, in Missouri, he received a written infraction for failing to take his prescribed medication. Delo testified that an exemplary inmate will receive five or fewer disciplinary infractions a year, making Robinson's record one of the best he had seen during his time working within the Missouri prison system. Instead of turning to violence, Cunningham found that Robinson used his time in custody constructively and had a positive work adjustment in the prison setting. Robinson worked on an inmate building crew and performed a substantial amount of computer work for the benefit of the prison. Delo testified that Robinson also took advantage of several educational and training opportunities.
Cunningham testified that correctional staff's assessment and appraisal of an inmate is a relevant factor in predicting his or her propensity for violence in prison. Cunningham found that staff's appraisals of Robinson were favorable. Robinson began his term at KDOC in maximum security, but he was reduced to medium security within several months. Robinson began his pretrial confinement at the Johnson County 339 Detention Center in a medium security setting but was later transferred to maximum security when the State charged him with capital murder. Even so, officials at the Johnson County jail allowed Robinson's granddaughter to have contact visits with him, which suggested to Cunningham that their compassion for the young girl outweighed any concern they had about Robinson's propensity for violence. Cunningham interviewed two staff members at KDOC who had supervised Robinson, and both confirmed he was an exceptional worker. One of the staff members noted that Robinson was particularly skilled in the field of computer technology and that prison officials had Robinson troubleshoot computer problems and develop software programs used by the prison. However, both of these correctional officials told Cunningham that Robinson fraudulently altered documents containing their signatures and used them to bolster his position before the parole board.
Cunningham identified an inmate's relationship with family as the final assessment factor, explaining that inmates who are in routine contact with their families tend to have better prison adjustment and fewer disciplinary issues. Cunningham testified that during the 22 months Robinson spent in pretrial detention, his wife, youngest daughter, and granddaughter visited him with some regularity.
Cunningham knew Robinson used computers and the Internet to perpetrate a number of his crimes of conviction. Nevertheless, he expressed little concern with Robinson's history of computer use in prison because he would be placed in a maximum security setting, which he presumed would offer Robinson little to no opportunity to have 340 unsupervised access to the Internet. Cunningham also observed that Robinson's previous computer activity in prison was focused on software and troubleshooting, not Internet activity. Cunningham admitted, however, that he did not speak to KDOC officials regarding their policy and did not know definitively whether Robinson would have Internet access in its facilities. Cunningham also testified that the violent nature of Robinson's offenses did not increase his propensity for violence in prison. Cunningham highlighted studies conducted by the United States Department of Justice that found that an inmate's conviction for violent crime was not a reliable predictor of prison adjustment and did not correlate with higher rates of prison violence. Cunningham also explained that Robinson had committed violent crimes in the community before entering the prison system, yet he exhibited no propensity for violence while incarcerated. Cunningham admitted that Robinson had a history of deception both inside and outside of the prison setting, and he predicted this behavior would continue. Delo also confirmed that as an inmate ages, he may rely more on manipulation or deception in order to survive and thrive within the prison system. However, Cunningham believed Robinson's use of deceit inside prison was motivated primarily by his desire to secure an earlier release, and Robinson would have no such opportunity with his crimes of conviction. Cunningham could not completely rule out the possibility that Robinson might use deceit and manipulation to further a plan of escape, but he noted that Robinson had shown no propensity for flight and cited data illustrating the extraordinarily low percentage of successful escapes from maximum security prisons. 341 Cunningham also had no serious concerns about Robinson's history of manipulating women inside prison, particularly Bonner. Cunningham explained that Robinson would be placed in a much higher security level, limiting his interaction with and access to prison staff. Also, Cunningham believed that Bonner knew Robinson only as a white collar criminal. In the future, it would be harder for Robinson to manipulate women behind bars because he is widely known for luring, deceiving, and killing multiple women. However, Delo admitted that it is not uncommon for prison staff to form relationships with and fall victim to the manipulation of inmates within the system. Based on his assessment of the key risk factors, Cunningham opined that Robinson would have a positive adjustment to prison free from violence. Delo offered a similar opinion. 3. Residual Doubt In support of mitigating circumstance 6, Robinson argued that there was residual doubt as to whether he acted alone, suggesting that his moral culpability should be diminished by or shared with his cohorts. In closing argument, Robinson's counsel highlighted evidence, including the weight of the barrels housing the bodies and the unidentified fingerprints found on the plastic sheeting inside his Raymore, Missouri, storage locker and on the roll of duct tape stained with Lewicka's blood, as proof of others' involvement.