Supreme Court of Kansas
State v. Keys
June 3, 2022510 P.3d 706
Summary
The court affirmed Keys' convictions for felony murder and aggravated robbery. It held that a grand jury's second superseding indictment was not an amendment governed by the indictment-amendment statute, and that Keys received adequate notice and opportunity to defend. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for selective prosecution and admission of an unavailable witness's deposition, while concluding that no self-defense instruction was legally appropriate and that cumulative error could not apply because no error was established.
Holding
- Whether the second superseding indictment was an unauthorized substantive amendment under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3015.. The statute governing amendment of indictments did not apply because the challenged charging document was a new second superseding indictment returned by the grand jury, not an amendment ordered by the court at the prosecutor's request.
- Whether the second superseding indictment violated procedural due process.. The second superseding indictment did not violate due process because it gave Keys notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to defend against them at the second trial.
- Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss for selective prosecution.. The district court properly denied the motion because Keys failed to show both that similarly situated persons were not prosecuted for similar conduct and that he was intentionally singled out on an arbitrary or invidious basis.
- Whether Dr. Glenn was unavailable and his deposition testimony could be admitted.. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Glenn unavailable and admitting his deposition testimony.
- Whether admission of Dr. Glenn's deposition violated Keys' confrontation rights.. The court declined to reach the merits of the confrontation claim because Keys did not preserve it by making a timely and specific constitutional objection in the district court.
- Whether Keys was entitled to a self-defense instruction.. Keys was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because neither distribution or possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance nor aggravated robbery contained an element that could legally be justified by self-defense; self-defense is never a defense to felony murder itself.
Docket 121866
Cited authorities
- Sup. Ct. R. 37