State v. Bradley, 48732
| Decision Date | 01 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 48732,48732 |
| Citation | 223 Kan. 710,576 P.2d 647 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Willmore Larry BRADLEY, a/k/a Larry Williams, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In a murder trial the state may not introduce evidence of good character of the deceased prior to such time as the defense attacks the character of the deceased. This is equally true in cases where the anticipated defense is self-defense or justifiable homicide.
2. A defendant is entitled to present the theory of his defense. The exclusion of evidence, which is an integral part of the theory of defense, violates the defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial.
3. In an appeal from a jury verdict which found the defendant guilty of first degree murder and aggravated robbery, it is held: The trial court erred (a) in admitting evidence of deceased's good character during the state's case in chief and prior to any attack thereon by the defense, and (b) in excluding evidence relative to the motive and intent of the deceased for his alleged attack on the defendant which resulted in the deceased's death, and the judgment and convictions are reversed and remanded with directions.
Stephen J. Bednar of Curfman, Brainerd, Harris, Bell, Weigand & Depew, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Stephen M. Joseph, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., Vern Miller, Dist. Atty., and Sharon Werner, Asst. Dist. Atty., were on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal in a criminal action from a jury verdict which found Willmore Larry Bradley guilty of first degree murder (K.S.A. 21-3401) and aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427).
The defendant resided with Molleaner Miller in Hutchinson, Kansas. Molleaner Miller was shot by the defendant in their residence on the night of May 23, 1975. On the day of his death the deceased had withdrawn $1,600.00 in cash from a local bank. The body was placed in the trunk of a car by the defendant and his girl friend and dumped in rural Sedgwick County where it was found on May 25, 1975. There was no identification on the body other than a pen with a Hutchinson address. The body was identified shortly thereafter. The victim had been shot in the back of the head from a distance of more than six inches. There were no injuries to the body that indicated the man had been in a fight prior to the time he was shot. There were injuries indicating the body had been dragged after death. Defendant and his girl friend purchased one-way air line tickets to Hawaii on May 24, 1975, as well as clothing and jewelry. All purchases were paid for in cash. The murder weapon was subsequently found in a septic tank at the Airline Motel in Wichita. The defendant and his girl friend were arrested in Hawaii in August, 1975.
The above statement of facts is not in dispute. There was no question of identity. The state contended Miller was killed while the defendant was attempting to rob him. The state presented witnesses who testified the participants had told them robbery was the motive. The defense was self-defense.
Many points of error are raised on appeal. Several of these points of error are predicated on the admission and exclusion of evidence of deceased's character, prior activities, and past criminal acts. These points will be considered together as they are interrelated.
The first area of controversy lies in the admission into evidence in the state's case in chief of considerable testimony from various witnesses relating to their prior knowledge of the defendant. At trial the defendant objected to this testimony on the grounds that it was not evidence of the deceased's general reputation in the community but, rather, related to personal observations and individual incidents, and was partially remote in time. On appeal the defendant reiterates these objections as well as raising the additional objection that the state should not have been permitted to introduce evidence of deceased's good character prior to such time as the deceased's character was attacked by the defense. Due to certain rulings of the trial court, the defendant, in fact, never did introduce any evidence attacking the character of the deceased.
The general rule is frequently stated that the state can not show the peaceful reputation of the deceased until the character of the deceased is under attack.
(40 Am.Jur.2d, Homicide, § 308, p. 577.)
Accord, 40 C.J.S. Homicide, § 272e; 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 236 (13th ed. 1972); Annot, 34 A.L.R.2d 451.
The state contends that the afore-enumerated general rules no longer apply in Kansas when the state is on notice that the defense will be self-defense. Much verbiage in the briefs of the parties is consumed with the question of whether or not the specific evidence admitted complied with K.S.A. 60-446 and 60-447. The first question to be resolved is whether or not evidence of the character of the deceased, whether in proper form or not, should have been admitted in the state's case in chief. K.S.A. 60-446, -447, -448, -449, and -450 all relate to how character, custom, or habit may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Marsh, No. 81,135.
...that is an integral part of that theory violates a defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial. Mays, 254 Kan. at 486 (quoting State v. Bradley, 223 Kan. 710, Syl. ¶ 2, 576 P.2d 647 [1978]); State v. Gonzales, 245 Kan. 691, 699, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989). `"Few rights are more fundamental than......
-
State v. Stano
...violates a defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial. [State v.] Mays, 254 Kan. [479,] 486[, 866 P.2d 1037 (1994)] (quoting State v. Bradley, 223 Kan. 710, Syl. ¶ 2, 576 P.2d 647 [1978]); State v. Gonzales, 245 Kan. 691, 699, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989). `"Few rights are more fundamental than ......
-
Com. v. Hood
...107, 113, 28 Ill.Dec. 422, 390 N.E.2d 589 (1979). Commonwealth v. O'Malley, supra at 323-325, 439 N.E.2d 832. State v. Bradley, 223 Kan. 710, 713, 576 P.2d 647 (1978). See People v. Williams, 60 Ill.App.3d 529, 18 Ill.Dec. 214, 377 N.E.2d 367 (1978); State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 29-32, 410......
-
State v. Carr
...rules of establishing character to exclude relevant and material information pertaining to the defense.” State v. Bradley, 223 Kan. 710, 713–14, 576 P.2d 647 (1978).See State v. Rowell, 256 Kan. 200, 209, 883 P.2d 1184 (1994), abrogated on other grounds by Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 235 P.3d 43......