Court Opinion

ID: 9736420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:55:36.532737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:29.667008
License: Public Domain

Leben, J.,
concurring: I join the court’s opinion except for the analysis of the defendant’s claim that the district court erred by using an outdated instruction on how to evaluate eyewitness testimony. I agree with my colleagues that there was no real possibility that a different verdict would have been reached in this case had another eyewitness instruction been given, and I would affirm on that issue solely on this basis. Because of the strength of the evi*535dence against Hernandez, this is not an appropriate case in which to wade through the legal thicket regarding what might constitute a proper eyewitness instruction. See State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 514-18, 186 P.3d 713 (2008); State v. Mitchell, 2009 WL 311814, at *2-3 (Kan. App. 2009) (unpublished opinion), aff'd 294 Kan. 469, 275 P.3d 905 (2012).