State v. Carter
| Decision Date | 18 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 120,103,120,103 |
| Citation | 477 P.3d 1004 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Quincy R.T. CARTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Richard Ney, of Ney, Adams & Miller, of Wichita, argued the cause, and was on the briefs for appellant.
Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.
Quincy R.T. Carter appeals from his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm, and one count of criminal possession of a firearm.
The relationships, including gang affiliations, of the principal parties in the events leading up to the violence that generated the convictions and appeal in this case are set out in a companion appeal, State v. Carter , 311 Kan. 783, 466 P.3d 1180 (2020). In that appeal, this court affirmed the conviction of Brent J. Carter of felony murder arising out of the same shootings that underlie the present appeal. We summarize here the facts necessary to understand the issues on appeal.
On the day of the confrontation, December 1, 2015, Luerene Browning, and her cousin, Tatyana Crowe, were at the home of Browning's mother, Betty Holloman. Browning's sisters, Sharmethiea and Crystal, and her stepfather, John Collins, were also at the home that day.
That afternoon, Magic Jamerson and Brenton Oliver visited Browning and Crowe at the home. Jamion Wimbley drove to the house that afternoon to drop off Khalah Beard, who was a friend of Browning and Crowe's. When Wimbley pulled up, Crystal was outside in the driveway smoking and talking on the phone. Crystal ended her conversation so that she could talk with Wimbley. While the two were talking, Oliver ran out of the residence over to Wimbley's car, shouting and cursing.
The two engaged in a confrontational discussion, and Wimbley appeared frightened. As described in Carter , 311 Kan. at 785, 466 P.3d 1180, one or two weeks before that confrontation, the two had been in a fight, and the confrontation in the driveway seemed to be carrying forward the issues from the earlier physical altercation. As the argument in the driveway continued, Jamerson ran out of the house toward Wimbley's car and shouted, "On Bloods." Wimbley told Oliver he had something for Oliver's "bitch ass," and drove off, saying he would be back. Crystal became angry and warned Jamerson and Oliver not to do their "gangbanging shit" at her mother's house.
Approximately 45 minutes after Wimbley left, Jamerson and Beard got into an argument, and Beard called her sister, Alexis Davis, to come and pick her up. Alexis' boyfriend, Jonathan Carter, drove Davis to the house to pick up Beard. When they got there, Davis got out of the car so that Beard could get in the backseat. Jamerson had followed Beard out to the car, calling her names, and he and Davis proceeded to get into an argument. At the same time, Oliver and Jonathan were "tussling" near the open driver's side door of Jonathan's car. Holloman had left the house and gone over to the car to tell everyone to leave. Jonathan asked her to go back in the house so she would not be caught up in the fighting.
Those two separate fights were taking place as Wimbley returned to the house in his car. Just as he pulled up, one of the back windows in his car went down and someone stuck a gun out the window. Shots were fired from the gun. Then Brent Carter jumped out of the front passenger seat with a large gun and fired shots in the direction of the residence. Wimbley jumped out of the driver's seat and ran to where Jonathan and Oliver were fighting. Quincy Carter, whom witnesses identified as the individual who fired the shots through the backseat window, got out of the car and started shooting toward the house and the people outside. Brent then said to Carter, "Come on ‘Q,’ let's roll."
Oliver and Holloman died from gunshot wounds. An extensive search was conducted, and law enforcement arrested Carter about two weeks after the shootings.
The State charged Carter with two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm, and a single count of criminal possession of a firearm. A jury found him guilty on all charges. The court sentenced him to two consecutive hard 25 life sentences plus 53 months. He took a timely appeal to this court.
Carter asserts five grounds for reversing his convictions. We find none of them compelling.
Under both the United States Constitution and Kansas statutory law, a criminal defendant enjoys the right to a public trial. See U.S. Const., amend. 6 ; K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3420(d). That right implies that courtrooms be kept open and that the public, or such portion of the public as may be conveniently accommodated, be admitted, subject to the authority of the court to exclude objectionable characters. State v. Galloway , 311 Kan. 238, 250, 459 P.3d 195 (2020). This right to a public trial extends to jury selection. Weaver v. Massachusetts , 582 U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1899, 1906, 198 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2017) ; Presley v. Georgia , 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 175 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2010).
On Monday, December 11, 2017, during the voir dire of prospective jurors, most or all of the seats in the courtroom were occupied by the jury venire. As a consequence, access to the proceeding was not available to the public, including Carter's and the victims' families. No one objected at the time.
While this appeal was pending, Carter filed a motion to remand the case to the trial court to determine whether the voir dire proceedings took place in closed court. Carter requested, and this court granted, a stay of briefing until the trial court made findings of fact resolving that question. The trial court then held an evidentiary hearing, at the conclusion of which it determined that the voir dire proceedings took place in open court because, in spite of the court's invitation to make some sort of accommodation that would allow the public to observe, no one requested leave from the court to sit in on the proceedings.
On appeal, Carter contends that the proceedings were, in fact, closed to his family members and he further contends that not providing space for spectators violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, which necessarily requires reversal. Carter asserts two positions: the trial court erred in its determination that the jury selection proceeding was held in open court; and, because it was not an open proceeding, reversal is required as a matter of law.
The trial court based its findings following the remand hearing on the testimony and arguments presented at the hearing. We therefore apply a bifurcated standard of review. First, without reweighing the evidence, we examine the trial court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. We next apply a de novo standard of review to the ultimate legal conclusion. We do not reweigh evidence, assess witness credibility, or resolve conflicting evidence. See, e.g., State v. Betancourt , 301 Kan. 282, 290, 342 P.3d 916 (2015). The ultimate legal conclusion regarding whether a defendant's right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. State v. Reed , 302 Kan. 227, 236, 352 P.3d 530 (2015).
On the Friday before the trial began, the trial judge discussed various practical matters of the trial procedure with counsel for both parties. The following dialogue took place:
On the fourth day of the trial, the State again raised the subject of whether the proceeding was open. The following conversation took place outside the presence of the jury:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bliss
...judicially created exceptions. See Brown , 307 Kan. at 645, 413 P.3d 783. As the court succinctly explained in State v. Carter , 312 Kan. 526, 535, 477 P.3d 1004 (2020) : "Exceptions exist for raising issues on appellate review without expressing an objection to the trial court, but K.S.A. ......
-
State v. Wimbley
......As Wimbley departed, witnesses heard him say, "I got something for your bitch ass, I'll be back."After Wimbley left, some of his associates arrived at the Holloman residence and began arguing and fighting with Oliver and others. Wimbley then returned, driving a vehicle with Brent Carter in the passenger seat and Quincy Carter in the back seat.As Wimbley pulled up, someone began shooting from his car. Eyewitness testimony about the next few minutes describes a confusing flurry of activity. Testimony about the events varied, but it painted a picture of Wimbley and his passengers ......
-
State v. Carter
...and Oliver's deaths. See State v. Wimbley , 313 Kan. 1029, 1031, 493 P.3d 951 (2021) ; State v. [Quincy ] Carter , 312 Kan. 526, 528, 477 P.3d 1004 (2020) ; State v. [Brent ] Carter , 311 Kan. 783, 787-88, 466 P.3d 1180 (2020). Carter timely appeals. ANALYSIS Carter challenges the elements ......
-
State v. Wimbley
...juries also convicted Wimbley's passengers of crimes arising from Holloman's and Oliver's deaths. See State v. Carter, 312 Kan. 526, 477 P.3d 1004 (2020); State v. Carter, 311 Kan. 783, 466 P.3d 1180 (2020). Analysis Wimbley raises a single issue in his direct appeal from his jury trial and......