Court Opinion

ID: 9786952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:06:23.541322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:50.474746
License: Public Domain

Davis, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and would, as explained below, reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial based upon the inadequacy of counsel in fading to call Larry Marsh to testify. The majority opinion concludes that this failure to present Larry Marsh’s testimony was deficient but not prejudicial under the two-prong test set forth in State v. Mathis, 281 Kan. 99, 109-10, 130 P.3d 14 (2006).
In my opinion, application of this two-prong test requires reversal of the defendant’s conviction and a remand for a new trial. The majority opinion provides an excellent analysis of the reason why the failure to call Larry Marsh to testify was deficient on the part of defense counsel. However, the majority, in considering the totality of evidence and, most importantly, defendant’s failure to *180mention Larry Marsh’s peril to police immediately following the shooting, demonstrates that the prejudice prong of Mathis was not satisfied. In other words, the majority concluded that the defendant had failed to show he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to call Larry Marsh to testily.
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the failure to call Larry Marsh, the only witness supporting one of the primaiy defenses of tire defendant, the defense of another, is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of this trial. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant did not mention Larry Marsh to tire police after the shooting, the defendant could have explained this numerous ways. The absence of the jury hearing directly from Larry Marsh that he was threatened by the victim and the victim was capable of inflicting great bodily harm or death upon him by reason of his distance from the victim undermines the jury verdict. I am unable to predict that such evidence would have no effect on the jury verdict in this case. In my opinion, there exists a reasonable probability the result may have been different had tire jury considered the testimony of Larry Marsh. I would therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.
Luckert, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.