Opinion ID: 2628126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reconsideration of Motion in Limine

Text: In his brief on this appeal, the defendant cites the law of the case, the mandate rule, the protection against double jeopardy, and a pretrial motion to enforce the previous limine order in support of his position on this issue. However, the district court's decision was based solely on the doctrine of the law of the case. Generally issues not raised below may not be raised on appeal, State v. Rojas, 280 Kan. 931, 932, 127 P.3d 247 (2006), but this court may reach a legal theory first asserted on appeal if (1) it involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the theory is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the judgment of the trial court was right for the wrong reason. State v. Schroeder, 279 Kan. 104, 116, 105 P.3d 1237 (2005). We choose to address the merits of each of defendant's arguments on the chance that refusal to do so would endanger a fundamental right. The law of the case doctrine has long been applied in Kansas and is generally described in the following manner: `The doctrine of the law of the case is not an inexorable command, or a constitutional requirement, but is, rather, a discretionary policy which expresses the practice of the courts generally to refuse to reopen a matter already decided, without limiting their power to do so. This rule of practice promotes the finality and efficiency of the judicial process. The law of the case is applied to avoid indefinite relitigation of the same issue, to obtain consistent results in the same litigation, to afford one opportunity for argument and decision of the matter at issue, and to assure the obedience of lower courts to the decisions of appellate courts.' State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 631, 952 P.2d 1326 (1998) (quoting 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appellate Review § 605). The doctrine was first stated by the United States Supreme Court in Himely v. Rose, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 313, 3 L.Ed. 111 (1809) (court will not revisit issues finally decided by it in previous appeal), and Skillern's Ex'rs v. May's Ex'rs, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 267, 3 L.Ed. 220 (1810) (once issues finally decided, lower court has no choice but to follow mandate). Kansas adopted the doctrine in Headley v. Challiss, 15 Kan. 602, 605-06 (1875); and the cases stating the rule since are legion in number. See Collier, 263 Kan. at 632, 952 P.2d 1326. Under the rule, it is clear that, when a second trial or appeal is pursued in a case, the first decision is the settled law of the case on all questions addressed in a first appeal. Reconsideration will not be given to such questions. Waddell v. Woods, 160 Kan. 481, Syl. ¶ 3, 163 P.2d 348 (1945). The problem with applying the doctrine to prevent the district court's reconsideration of the defense motion in limine regarding Newhouse's testimony is that the issue of that testimony never arose on Morton's first appeal. In such a situation, the district court had the discretion, and perhaps even the duty, to consider the issue anew on remand. Likewise, the mandate rule, codified in K.S.A. 60-2106(c) and stating that the Supreme Court's mandate and opinion shall be controlling in the conduct of any further proceedings necessary in the district court, is inapplicable. Collier, 263 Kan. at 635, 952 P.2d 1326 (discussing K.S.A. 60-2106 and the mandate rule); Duffitt & Ramsey v. Crozier, Judge, 30 Kan. 150, Syl. ¶ 1, 1 P. 69 (1883). The admissibility of Newhouse's testimony was not addressed in Morton's first appeal or in the mandate to which it gave rise. Thus there was nothing to control the conduct of the district court on this issue. Morton can get no farther with his argument that the State acquiesced in the district court's original ruling by failing to cross-appeal or his argument that the State should be precluded from benefitting from admission of Newhouse's testimony at a retrial necessitated by prosecutorial misconduct. The State had no duty to cross-appeal the original motion in limine ruling, and we have already fully discussed and rejected defendant's assertion of double jeopardy protection. Having established that neither law of the case, the mandate rule, nor double jeopardy required the district judge to exclude Newhouse's testimony on retrial, we briefly address the merits of the renewed motion in limine filed by the defense. Our first inquiry is relevance. `Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.' State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693, 124 P.3d 493 (2005) (quoting State v. Carter, 278 Kan. 74, 77, 91 P.3d 1162 [2004]). Abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard of review for a district court's ruling on such a motion. The party challenging the ruling bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion. State v. Holmes, 278 Kan. 603, 623, 102 P.3d 406 (2004); State v. Abu Fakher, 274 Kan. 584, 594, 56 P.3d 166 (2002). There is no doubt that Newhouse's testimony concerning the distance from the muzzle of the gun to the victim was relevant. The shorter the distance, the less likely members of the jury would accept defendant's version of what happened, i.e., that he fired a shot merely to scare the victim, without looking where the gun was pointing. Moreover, the testimony was admissible under K.S.A. 60-456(b), which permits expert testimony in the form of opinions or inferences . . . as the judge finds are (1) based on facts or data perceived by or personally known or made known to the witness at the hearing and (2) within the scope of the special knowledge, skill, experience or training possessed by the witness. Finally, the original reason the district court had excluded the testimony  to avoid the prejudice of unfair surprise  no longer applied. Under these circumstances, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to permit the Newhouse testimony on retrial.