Court Opinion

ID: 9795131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:21:08.76068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:55.794150
License: Public Domain

Allegrucci, J.,
concurring and dissenting. I dissent from the majority’s opinion upholding defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault and the imposition of the hard 40 sentence.
As noted in the majority opinion, an element of aggravated assault “is intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm” committed with a deadly weapon. See K.S.A. 21-3408; K.S.A. 21-3410. The majority stated: “Sarah obviously had great fear for her safety and well-being.” Obviously, the majority subscribes to the view that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a chicken.
Sarah’s testimony was crystal clear and susceptible to only one interpretation. Her testimony is set out in the majority opinion. She obviously was not in apprehension of immediate bodily harm. Defendant did not threaten Sarah. He did not point the gun at her. The majority ignores Sarah’s testimony and our decision in State v. Warbritton, 215 Kan. 534, 527 P.2d 1050 (1974). Warbritton controls. Sarah testified she had no apprehension of immediate harm. I fail to understand the majority’s statement that Sarah’s testifying she did not feel threatened if she complied with defendant’s demands is immaterial “under the facts of this case.” The evidence does not support the conviction for aggravated assault.
I next turn to the majority’s affirming the imposition of the hard 40 sentence. On appeal, the test is whether a rational factfinder reviewing all the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could find by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the aggravating circumstances. State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 329-30, 7 P.3d 224 (2000).
The majority simply repeats the findings of the trial court, but fails to apply the above test to the evidence presented in this case.
*801The majority in finding the murder was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner does not review the evidence to support such a conclusion.
There were two eyewitnesses to the shooting, Susan Duke and Patricia Ward. Susan Duke testified that she saw Lisa back away from defendant and hold up her right arm. She then testified:
“A. In what seemed like just a matter of seconds, the man who had been holding the gun down to this right side raised it up and fired the gun.
“Q. And what, if anything, did you do at that point?
“A. I ran for the phone.
"Q. And what were you doing with the phone?
“A. I called 911.
“Q. And was there anything else occurring as you were calling 911?
“A. I continued to hear die sounds diat I heard when I heard the first gunshot. I heard more gunshots.
“Q. And do you know at that particular point in time how many additional gunshots you heard, Miss Duke?
“A. I know at least two.
“Q. Now, after you had heard these additional gunshots did you move about in your apartment any? Did you move around in your apartment?
“A. Yes. As I was on die phone widi 911.
"A. Yes, I was, while I was still on die phone.
“Q. And what did you see when you looked out your son’s window?
“A. I saw tiiat die man was still diere with the gun.
“Q. Could you see die woman widi the dog at that point?
“A. No, I could not.
“Q. And did you observe anydiing else occur at that point?
“A. I saw the man widi die gun turn and run away from the scene.”
Patricia Ward was busy at her desk and noticed defendant and Lisa. She watched them walking and talking and testified:
“Q. And what was going on outside?
“A. Well, after I heard the scream I heard gunshots.
“Q. Okay. And how many gunshots did you hear?
“A. I think I heard two when I decided to pick up the phone and call.
“Q. Okay. And where were you at when you heard die gunshots?
“A. I was standing in die window.
“Q. Okay. Of your office?
“A. Uh-huh.
*802"Q. Okay. Now, after you’d heard the gunshots did you do anything else other than pick up the phone?
“A. I picked up the phone to call the manager, the owner’s son, and he told me to hang up and call 911.
“Q. Did you do that?
“A. Uh-huh.
“Q. Did you observe anything else? Did you see anything else? -
“A. While I was on the phone with 911 I observed shooting, more shooting.
"Q. Okay. Tell die members of the jury widi regards to the shooting you observed what specifically it is diat you saw.
“A. Shooting.
“Q. Okay. And when you say you saw shooting, I’m not nit-picking here but describe diat for us, if you will.
“A. Okay. While die shooting was going on she fell. She was standing up and she ended up falling on die ground and die shooting continued.
“Q. Okay. And when the shooting continued how many shots were fired, if you know?
“A. I diought it was about five shots.
“Q. Okay. Now, you say diat you saw a lady fall down. Can you tell us where it is or point to where it is diat die lady fell down.
“A. There’s some grass like in diis area.
“Q. All right. Now, after the shooting occurred what happened at diat point?
“A. I was on die phone widi the 911 lady asking her to huriy and get somebody over diere to help, and she told me to stay on the phone and I remember seeing people, a lot of commotion. The police car showed up. There were people in the area and I remember the man that was shooting got up and sort of backed away, like looking at Lisa on the ground.
“Q. Okay. Now, diis man that backed away looking at Lisa on the ground, is diat the individual diat shot her?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Now, what did he do after he looked at her on die ground?
“A. I just remember him standing diere. I don’t — didn’t really keep my eye on him.”
The only finding by the trial court that could arguably distinguish this shooting death from those where this court has vacated a hard 40 sentence would be defendant repeatedly shooting Lisa as she lay helpless on the ground. Neither eyewitness so testified. Patricia Ward indicated defendant shot Lisa and continued to empty his gun as she fell to the ground. He emptied the gun into Lisa. To find that he shot her and then stood over her and shot her five more times while she lay conscious and helpless on the ground is *803nothing more than speculation and conjecture. The evidence does not support such a finding.
What is equally telling is that the State’s attorney, in arguing for imposition of the hard 40 sentence, never once mentioned or argued that defendant shot Lisa while she was lying helpless on the ground. In addition, the trial court relied on Lisa suffering mental anguish after she was shot and lying on the ground as a factor for the imposition of the hard 40 sentence. According to the trial court, she was lying on the ground and did not know whether “she was going to live or die.” That would be true in most, if not all, shooting deaths where death is not instantaneous. The great mental anguish needs to occur before she was shot and not as a result of the shooting. Defendant did nothing to Lisa after he shot her. There was no physical or mental abuse by defendant before Lisa died.
The finding that Lisa was “aware of her fate” and “was in extreme fear of harm at the hands of Mr. Lessley” is likewise not supported by the record. As defense counsel pointed out, if that were the case then Lisa would have gone to the driver’s side of the Blackmans’ car and put the car between herself and defendant. She did not try to get in the car, nor did she tell them defendant was trying to kill her. Instead, she said, “Please stop. Don’t drive away. I need help.”
We don’t know whether she was concerned about herself or defendant. The only evidence before the court was defendant’s testimony that he was talking to Lisa about committing suicide. Numerous people drove by or jogged by while defendant and Lisa were talking. She made no indication to them that she was in fear of being harmed by defendant. A finding that she was in fear of her life and knew of her impending death at the hands of defendant was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The State’s response was: “As far as Lisa knowing about her death, your honor, the jury has found his actions were premeditated. This wasn’t a sudden pulling out of the gun and during some seizure her being shot. There was premeditation in this act.”
Not only does premeditation have nothing to do with whether Lisa knew defendant was going to kill her, but as defense counsel noted, it was also disingenuous for the State to make that argument *804when it told the jury it could find premeditation can occur in an instant.
In Spry we said:
“All murders are heinous, atrocious, and cruel. Cook, 259 Kan. at 403. However, exceptional circumstances must exist before a murder can be classified as ‘especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.’ We have previously said: ‘The hard 40 sentence should be reserved for special cases . . . . Otherwise, the legislature would have mandated the hard 40 sentence in all first-degree murder cases.’ State v. Willis, 254 Kan. 119, 129, 864 P.2d 1198 (1993). ‘A crime is committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner when the perpetrator inflicts serious mental anguish or serious physical abuse before the victim’s death. Mental anguish includes a victim’s uncertainty as to [his] or [her] ultimate fate.’ (Emphasis added.) 254 Kan. 119, Syl. ¶ 4.” 266 Kan. at 531.
In State v. Cook, 259 Kan. 370, 403, 913 P.2d 97 (1996), we said: “The legislature, by using the phrase ‘in a particularly heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner,’ meant that the heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner must be in a special or unusual degree, to an extent greater than in other cases.”
It appears to me that the majority views all murders to have exceptional circumstances requiring a hard 40 sentence. I do not criticize its view; however, that is a decision for the legislature and not a majority of this court to make. This is a heinous, atrocious, and cruel murder, but it was not done “in a special or unusual degree, to an extent greater than in other cases.”
I would reverse defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault, vacate the hard 40 sentence, and remand for resentencing.
Six, J., joins in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.