Opinion ID: 1363141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The trial court erred, as a matter of law, in denying defendant's motion for discharge on Count 7, the felony murder of Weber.

Text: Count 5 of the information states: [O]n or about the 18th day of December, A.D., 1975, one CHESTER J. WORDS did then and there unlawfully, wilfully toward the perpetration of the crime of Aggravated Robbery as defined by K.S.A. 21-3427, commit the following overt act, to-wit: ordered a cab to 2256 N. Minneapolis, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, and demanded the cab driver to stop the car, in order to rob the driver, and then shot the cab driver four times with a .22 caliber revolver, and the said CHESTER J. WORDS, with the intention to commit said crime, failed in the perpetration thereof; These allegations are supported by the testimony of both Simmons and Ms. Malcolm. The latter testified that: (1) Defendant asked her to look up the telephone number of the cab company; (2) defendant called the number twice (the first time he became confused on directions); and (3) defendant left the house shortly thereafter and returned thirty to thirty-five minutes later. She testified as to defendant's statements to her upon his return as follows: Q. Would you describe for me and for the Jury exactly how that conversation took place as near as you can recall the exact words that were spoken? A. Well, he runs back into the house and I asked him what is wrong and he said, `I had to shoot and kill a cab driver.' And then he asked did I have a place where he could hide; I told him no. Q. Did he describe how he shot the cab driver or why he shot the cab driver? A. He told me that he told the cab driver to give him the money and he said the cab driver asked him did he want a wreck, and the cab driver started going, speeded up and that he shot him, and he tries to jump out of the car and that his coat got caught in the car. Simmons testified to similar statements defendant made to her after his statements to Ms. Malcolm. In a criminal case, the issue on appeal is not whether the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the evidence is sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Moody, 223 Kan. 699, 704, 576 P.2d 637, cert. denied 439 U.S. 894 (1978); State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, Syl. ¶ 1, 563 P.2d 999 (1977). Aggravated robbery is defined by K.S.A. 21-3427 as follows: Aggravated robbery is a robbery committed by a person who is armed with a dangerous weapon or who inflicts bodily harm upon any person in the course of such robbery. The relevant portion of the attempt statute (K.S.A. 21-3301) is as follows: (1) An attempt is any overt act toward the perpetration of a crime done by a person who intends to commit such crime but fails in the perpetration thereof or is prevented or intercepted in executing such crime. Clearly, there was sufficient evidence to form a reasonable inference of guilt of attempted aggravated robbery. Defendant next argues that by virtue of the fact there was insufficient evidence of the underlying felony (attempted aggravated robbery), Count 7 (felony murder) was not supported by sufficient evidence. We have already determined there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of attempted aggravated robbery, which controls this issue. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for discharge as to Counts 5 and 7.