State v. Craig
| Decision Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 119,660,119,660 |
| Citation | 462 P.3d 173,311 Kan. 456 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Joseph J. CRAIG, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant.
Jason B. Oxford, assistant county attorney, Krista Blaisdell, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
A jury found Joseph J. Craig guilty of both first-degree felony murder and second-degree intentional murder for a homicide that occurred under the guise of a drug transaction. In this direct appeal, Craig claims the district court erred when it sentenced him on the more serious felony murder instead of declaring a mistrial because the jury convicted him of two murder offenses for the same killing. He also argues the court should have given an instruction on voluntary intoxication since there was testimony he drank alcohol and smoked marijuana before he fired the three gunshots that killed his victim. We affirm.
Craig, Gabrielle Williams, Robyn Brown, and a fourth person were drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana one evening at Williams' apartment in Junction City. Williams proposed robbing David Phillips by luring him there for a drug transaction. She thought someone in the group could get Phillips' gun, take his money and marijuana at gunpoint, and then kill him. The fourth person did not want to be involved, so he left. Later that night, Williams texted Phillips to invite him over.
When he arrived, the four smoked marijuana in the bedroom. Williams sat on Phillips' lap. She told him his gun was poking her, so he put it on the floor with his black Carhartt jacket. While he was rolling a marijuana joint, Williams got the gun. Shortly after that, Craig went into the bathroom and Williams followed with the gun. Craig asked if she was "ready to go through with the plan." She shook her head indicating "no."
When the two returned, Phillips was still rolling a joint and had his head down. Craig put the gun to Phillips' head and pulled the trigger, but it misfired. Hearing the clicking sound, Phillips looked up and asked Craig to give back his gun. The two men went into the living room. According to Brown, Phillips seemed to think it was some kind of joke. Craig again pointed the gun at Phillips, telling him to get down.
At that moment, Williams grabbed Phillips' backpack with marijuana in it and jumped out the window. Brown left through the front door. She saw Phillips kneeling and Craig hovering over him with the gun. After she got out, Brown smoked a cigarette in the parking lot and saw Craig fire three shots into Phillips' head. Williams heard the gunshots while running away.
Junction City police discovered Phillips' black Carhartt jacket at Craig's residence. Witnesses indicated Phillips was wearing it when he went to Williams' apartment the night he was killed. The jacket had both Craig's and Phillips' DNA on it.
The State charged Craig with first-degree murder under theories of premeditated murder and felony murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At trial, the district court instructed the jury on the charged crimes, as well as second-degree intentional murder as a lesser included offense of first-degree premeditated murder. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all charges except premeditated murder. For the homicide, the jury convicted him of both felony murder and second-degree intentional murder.
At sentencing, the court dismissed the second-degree murder conviction. It sentenced Craig to life without the possibility of parole for 25 years for the felony-murder conviction and an additional 537 months in prison for the remaining convictions. Craig directly appeals to this court. Jurisdiction is proper. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3601(b) (); K.S.A. 60-2101(b) ().
Craig claims the court erred in its handling of the jury's guilty verdicts for felony murder and second-degree intentional murder. First, he argues his due process rights were violated because the jury in his view must have had a reasonable doubt about both the premeditation and felony-murder theories because it found him guilty of second-degree intentional murder. He bases this on the wording of Instruction No. 14. It stated: "If you have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendant as to the crime of murder in the first degree on both theories, then consider whether the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree."
Second, he contends that after the jury was discharged, these two guilty findings were "legally irreconcilable," so the only remedy was to order a new trial. For this, Craig relies on K.S.A. 22-3421 () and State v. Hernandez , 294 Kan. 200, 205, 273 P.3d 774 (2012) ().
Additional facts
At trial, the district court instructed the jury on (1) felony murder, (2) premeditated murder, and (3) intentional second-degree murder as a lesser included offense of premeditated murder.
Instruction No. 14 addressed the State's two theories for first-degree murder; it stated:
Instruction No. 16 addressed the elements of second-degree murder, providing:
Instruction No. 17 described the sequencing of the first-degree murder charge with the second-degree murder charge, stating:
Shortly after discharging the jury, the district court questioned the two murder verdicts, saying
At sentencing, the court revisited the issue. Craig moved for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. He insisted the jury must have had reasonable doubt on both first-degree murder theories because it convicted him of second-degree murder. He based this on Instruction No. 14's wording. The State contended the felony-murder conviction should stand and serve as the basis for sentencing. It also argued the court should not dismiss the second-degree murder conviction. Instead, the State contended the court should just not sentence him on that conviction.
The district court decided the jury must have misunderstood the instructions because they were each legally appropriate. It dismissed the second-degree murder conviction over the State's objection and sentenced Craig for the felony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Valdez
...Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the crime charged." State v. Craig , 311 Kan. 456, 462, 462 P.3d 173 (2020). Because of that, evidentiary devices like presumptions and inferences "must not undermine the factfinder's responsibili......
-
State v. Bodine
...Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of crime charged); State v. Craig , 311 Kan. 456, 462, 462 P.3d 173 (2020) (same). Before we reach the merits of Bodine's argument, however, we address the State's claim of invited error. Whether the......
-
State v. Brooks
... ... reviewability entailing preservation of the issue at trial ... and jurisdiction; (2) the legal appropriateness of the ... instruction; (3) the factual support in the evidence for the ... instruction; and (4) the harmlessness of any actual error ... State v. Craig , 311 Kan. 456, 464, 462 P.3d 173 ... (2020); State v. Plummer , 295 Kan. 156, Syl. ¶ ... 1, 283 P.3d 202 (2012). Brooks has preserved this issue, and ... we have jurisdiction to consider it ... The ... legal appropriateness of Brooks' instruction or ... ...
-
State v. Carter
...misled by them, those instructions will not result in reversible error even if they were in some manner erroneous." State v. Craig , 311 Kan. 456, 461, 462 P.3d 173, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 918, 208 L.Ed.2d 464 (2020).DiscussionThe district court gave the following felony-mur......