State v. Showalter (Kansas 2024)

Summary

The court affirmed Showalter’s convictions for two counts of premeditated first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and aggravated burglary. It held that most challenges to the autopsy photographs and all challenges to the coconspirator statements were unpreserved, that the one preserved photograph challenge failed on the merits, and that the State properly admitted the forensic pathologist’s deposition after establishing his unavailability. Because no individual error was shown, cumulative error was unavailable.

Holding

Preservation of the autopsy-photograph challenge. Showalter failed to preserve his undue-prejudice challenge to Exhibits 127 through 135 because he did not specifically object to those photographs at the pretrial hearing or otherwise give the district court an opportunity to evaluate them. He preserved the challenge to Exhibit 126 by objecting to it specifically before trial and renewing that objection at trial.

Admission of Exhibit 126. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Exhibit 126, an autopsy photograph showing internal damage to J.P.’s skull, because its substantial probative value was not outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice.

Statutory admission of the forensic pathologist’s deposition. The deposition was admissible under the statutory exception for deposition testimony taken for use at trial in the same action, and the State was not required to satisfy the heightened good-faith and diligent-effort unavailability showing associated with a different hearsay category.

Confrontation Clause and unavailability of a foreign-resident witness. Admission of the pathologist’s testimonial deposition did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The State made sufficient and reasonable efforts to establish unavailability, and a witness residing in a foreign country was necessarily unavailable for purposes of the constitutional analysis.

Preservation of the challenge to coconspirator statements. Showalter failed to preserve his relevance challenge to testimony about Sportsman’s claimed gang affiliation and alleged orders to kill Lisa. His trial objections were based on hearsay, not relevance, and he did not object at all to one witness’s testimony.

Cumulative error. Cumulative error did not warrant reversal because the court found no individual errors requiring consideration under the cumulative-error doctrine.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities