Opinion ID: 1454435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Questions ReservedThe Requirement of Statewide Interest

Text: The State called Prudence Huffman, the victim's mother, as its first witness. Mrs. Huffman testified that she and Chuck (her son) watched TV the entire evening of October 15, 1988, until he left at 9:30 p.m. The State asked if any alcoholic beverages were consumed. Mrs. Huffman stated that they never had alcoholic beverages in her home. After the State's the second witness began testifying, the State moved to prevent the admission of testimony regarding Chuck Huffman's consumption of illegal substances. The trial court overruled the motion in limine, stating the testimony would be evidence of the surrounding circumstances. The trial court noted that the State introduced evidence of the surrounding circumstances through Mrs. Huffman. The trial court instructed Leonard's counsel: I don't want you to get into a collateral trial here of trying the decedent. The State asserts that the trial court erred in overruling the motion. The State contends that the probative value of the testimony is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Leonard counters the State's position with three arguments. First, Leonard contends, the State did not preserve the issue for appeal because the State did not object to the testimony that Huffman had smoked marijuana when it was presented; second, the issue is not of statewide interest; and third, the trial court did not err in allowing the testimony because the testimony was admissible under the concept of res gestae. Each of these arguments has merit. We choose, however, to resolve the issue by holding it is not of statewide interest. Questions reserved by the State in a criminal prosecution will not be entertained on appeal merely to demonstrate whether error has been committed by the trial court. Generally, this court has accepted appeals on questions reserved by the State where the appeals involve questions of statewide interest important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law, State v. Holland, 236 Kan. 840, 841, 696 P.2d 401 (1985), and the interpretation of statutes, State v. Kopf, 211 Kan. 848, 508 P.2d 847 (1973). The relevance, probative value, and prejudicial effect of the testimony that Huffman smoked marijuana depends on the specific facts of this case. The admission of this evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Resolution of this issue will not provide a helpful precedent; therefore, we do not entertain it. Holland, 236 Kan. at 841, 696 P.2d 401.
The State proposed the following instruction: The defendant is charged with the crime of murder in the second degree. The defendant pleads not guilty. To establish this charge each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant killed JOHN C. HUFFMAN; 2. That such killing was done maliciously; and 3. That this act was done on or about the 16th day of October, 1988, in Cherokee County, Kansas. The trial court instructed on second-degree murder from PIK Crim.2d 56.03. The State objected. The trial court overruled the objection. The State reserved the issue for appeal. The State argues that PIK Crim.2d 56.03 fails to adequately instruct the jurors in the application of K.S.A. 21-3402, second-degree murder. The State contends that K.S.A. 21-3402 does not require specific intent to kill the particular victim. Leonard asserts that this issue should not be entertained because it lacks statewide interest, citing State v. Kopf, 211 Kan. 848, 508 P.2d 847. We agree. Kopf involved the trial court's refusal to submit requested instructions. In the case at bar, the jury instruction given mirrored the charge set forth in the amended information; thus, resolution of this issue depends upon the facts of this case. Therefore, we do not believe the question should be entertained for appellate review. The trial court is affirmed on the felony-murder issue. The appeal is dismissed as to the other issues. HOLMES, C.J., and HERD, J., dissenting on the felony murder issue.