Opinion ID: 2521566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: Richard Krigger

Text: Finally, Trammell argues that the in-court identification by Kase's neighbor, Richard Krigger, was unreliable. Krigger observed the car thief standing near the tow truck before he left with the Corvette and later when the car thief drove past him again. He did not give a description to the police and did not make a pretrial identification. Krigger was 75 percent sure of his identification in court but stated that he was not sure that he would have recognized the car thief walking down the street. Krigger's statement that he would not have recognized the car thief if he had passed him on the street and the 2-year delay in making an identification invalidates the reliability of Krigger's identification. However, we find the admission of his identification to be harmless error. Harmless error occurs when the erroneous admission of evidence could not have affected the result of the trial when considered in light of other evidence that was properly admitted. State v. Collier, 259 Kan. 346, 353, 913 P.2d 597 (1996). In this case, the positive identifications from victims of the crimes, Loper, Kase, and Eglich, overcome any problems with the identification by Krigger, whose observation of the crimes was far more tangential than that of the three victims. Trammell next argues that the trial court should not have admitted into evidence the gun that was found in his possession when he was arrested. The admission of evidence is within the trial court's discretion. Subject to the exclusionary rules, appellate courts review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of discretion standard. Judicial discretion is not abused if reasonable persons could differ about the propriety of the trial court's action. State v. Whitesell, 270 Kan. 259, 276, 13 P.3d 887 (2000). The person claiming that the trial court abused its discretion bears the burden of establishing such an abuse. 270 Kan. at 276-77. The admissibility of physical evidence is based on its relevance in connection with the accused and the crime charged. Physical evidence should be admitted unless it is clearly irrelevant. The jury may attribute such weight and effect as it sees fit. 270 Kan. at 277. Relevant evidence is any evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact. K.S.A. 60-401(b). The determination of relevancy is a matter of logic and experience, not a matter of law. State v. Gardner, 264 Kan. 95, 104, 955 P.2d 1199 (1998). Nevertheless, there must be some material or logical connection between collateral facts and the inference or result they are supposed to establish for them to be competent. 264 Kan. at 104. When a weapon is found in the defendant's possession and later identified as being similar to the one used in the crime, the lack of testimony positively identifying the weapon as that used in the crime goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. State v. Mitchell, 220 Kan. 700, 704, 556 P.2d 874 (1976). Kase and Eglich both testified that the gun found in Trammell's possession looked similar to the one used by the car thief when the Corvette was stolen. Because the gun was identified as being similar to the gun used during the car theft and assaults, the witnesses' inability to identify it as the exact gun goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the gun. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the gun into evidence. Next, Trammell argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The granting of a new trial is a matter within the trial court's discretion. Judicial discretion is abused when no reasonable person would agree with the trial court's decision. See State v. Betts, 272 Kan. 369, 380-81, 33 P.3d 575 (2001). Within 2 weeks of the beginning of Trammell's trial, the prosecutor learned that Trammell intended to assert that Cross committed the crimes. In response, the prosecutor prepared copies of all of the police reports involving Cross and delivered the copies to the District Attorney's records department for distribution to Trammell's counsel. The prosecutor advised Trammell's counsel that discovery was available. However, Trammell's counsel did not receive the copies until nearly 6 weeks after Trammell's trial began. The police reports stated that when arrested, Cross was in possession of a blue nylon bag that Cross said belonged to Trammell. Inside the blue nylon bag, police found weatherstripping from a motel room near Cross' motel room at the Econo Lodge motel where Cross was arrested. Police had previously observed Cross remove the weatherstripping in an unsuccessful attempt to break into the motel room. The police also found a cardboard box in Cross' motel room that contained paperwork from the Amoco station where the tow truck had been stolen. Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3501(1), a court may grant a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. However, new trials on grounds of newly discovered evidence are not favored, and such motions are to be viewed with caution. Betts, 272 Kan. at 380. There are two requirements that must be met before a trial court may grant a motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence: First, the defendant must establish that the newly proffered evidence is indeed `new,' in that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have been produced at trial. Second, the evidence must be of such materiality that there is a reasonable probability that the newly discovered evidence would produce a different result upon retrial. 272 Kan. at 380. Trammell does not allege that the State acted in bad faith by withholding exculpatory evidence. Likewise, the State does not argue that Trammell could have discovered the evidence through due diligence. This situation has been referred to as an oversight situation. See State v. Kelly, 216 Kan. 31, 36, 531 P.2d 60 (1975). The Kelly court stated: When the withholding of evidence by the prosecution is not deliberate and in bad faith and when the prosecution has not refused to honor a request for the evidence made at a proper stage of the proceedings, the defendant should be granted a new trial only if the record establishes: (1) that evidence was withheld or suppressed by the prosecution, (2) that the evidence withheld was clearly exculpatory, and (3) that the exculpatory evidence withheld was so material that the withholding of the same from the jury was clearly prejudicial to the defendant. 216 Kan. at 36. Exculpatory evidence tends to disprove a fact in issue that is material to guilt. State v. Aikins, 261 Kan. 346, 382, 932 P.2d 408 (1997). Evidence is material if it might have created reasonable doubt and affected the outcome of the trial. 261 Kan. at. 383. Courts apply three different standards for determining the materiality of evidence. First, there is evidence that is merely helpful to the defense. Second, there is evidence that raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Third, there is evidence that creates a substantial likelihood of reversal. The proper standard for determining materiality must reflect the court's overall concern with the justice of the finding of guilt. A guilty finding is only permissible if it is supported by evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, constitutional error has been committed. 261 Kan. at 383. Trammell argues that Cross' statement about the ownership of the blue nylon bag is exculpatory and material because it proves Trammell's theory that Cross was blaming Trammell for Cross' criminal activity. Cross, however, did not state that Trammell was responsible for the attempted break-in at the motel room. Consequently, Trammell's argument is based on the inference that because the blue nylon bag belonged to Trammell, Trammell must have put the weatherstripping in it. Trammel's argument overlooks the inference that Cross could have placed the weatherstripping in a bag owned by Trammell, which begs the question of how Cross happened to be in possession of Trammell's bag. Trammell provided the answer to this question when he testified that he thought Cross was involved in stealing some of Trammell's property. Likewise, Trammell's allegation that Cross was involved in stealing Trammell's property also provides an explanation regarding Cross' possession of paperwork from the Amoco station. The newly discovered evidence can be considered exculpatory because it tends to disprove the eyewitnesses' identification of Trammell as the robber. The evidence is helpful to Trammell because it supports his claim that Cross framed him. However, the evidence is not material in the sense that it would have created a reasonable doubt and affected the outcome of the trial. Trammell's testimony provides an obvious explanation for Cross' possession of items that were related to Trammell. The jury could have easily inferred that Cross stole the blue nylon bag and the cardboard box along with Trammell's other possessions. When considered in light of Trammell's testimony and the testimony from the three victims who readily identified Trammell, the new evidence does not rise to the level of creating a substantial likelihood of reversal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Trammell's motion for a new trial. Finally, Trammell argues that his conviction should be reversed due to cumulative trial errors. This court looks at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether cumulative errors have substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied his or her right to a fair trial. However, if the evidence is overwhelmingly against the defendant, no prejudicial error may be found based on the cumulative effect rule. State v. Plaskett, 271 Kan. 995, 1022, 27 P.3d 890 (2001). Trammell claims the following cumulative errors: (1) erroneous admission of the pretrial identifications; (2) failure to grant a new trial to include the new exculpatory evidence; and (3) erroneous admission of the gun. Each of these claims have been determined against Trammell. Thus, he has failed to establish any errors that prejudiced his right to a fair trial. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed.