State v. Barnes

Summary

The court affirmed Barnes' convictions and sentence, holding that Kansas had subject matter jurisdiction over the out-of-state tampering conduct because its proximate monitoring-related result occurred in Kansas. The court distinguished subject matter jurisdiction from venue and vicinage, held Barnes's constitutional location-based claims unpreserved, rejected his prosecutorial-error, evidentiary, jury-instruction, sufficiency, and cumulative-error claims, and found no reversible error. The court also held that the standard premeditation instruction was accurate and that the omission of an intentional second-degree-murder instruction was not clear error.