State v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 14 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 106,299.,106,299.
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Bobby D. EDWARDS, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

290 P.3d 661

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Bobby D. EDWARDS, Appellant.

No. 106,299.

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Dec. 14, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this determination, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicting evidence.

2. Robbery is the taking of property from the person or presence of another by force or by threat of bodily harm to any person. K.S.A. 21–3426. Aggravated robbery is a robbery committed by a person who is armed with a dangerous weapon or who inflicts bodily harm upon any person in the course of such robbery. K.S.A. 21–3427. Theft is obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property, done with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use, or benefit of the owner's property. K.S.A. 21–3701(a)(1).

3. In order for a taking of property to constitute a robbery as opposed to a theft, the perpetrator's use of force against the victim must either precede or be contemporaneous with the perpetrator's taking of property from the victim.

4. Robbery and aggravated robbery are not specific intent crimes, they require only general criminal intent. Specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of his or her property is not an essential element to committing the crimes of robbery or aggravated robbery.

5. Taking property from the person of the victim and taking property from the presence of the victim do not constitute alternative means of committing aggravated robbery under K.S.A. 21–3427.

6. When the trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, an appellate court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his or her theory of the case, even if the evidence of the theory is slight and supported only by the defendant's own testimony. However, an appellate court cannot consider the requested instruction in isolation. Rather, the court must consider all of the instructions together as a whole. If the instructions as a whole properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case and the jury could not reasonably be misled by them, the instructions are not reversible error even if they are in some way erroneous.

7. Where a party neither suggested an instruction nor objected to its omission, an appellate court reviewing a district court's giving or failure to give a particular instruction applies a clearly erroneous standard. An instruction is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the trial error had not occurred.

8. With the exception of witnesses called by the State to rebut a defendant's alibi witnesses, prosecuting attorneys are not required to disclose or endorse names of rebuttal witnesses.

9. When reviewing the district court's decision to exclude evidence, an appellate court first must determine whether the evidence is relevant. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact and encompasses two components: whether the evidence is probative and whether it is material. Probative evidence is evidence that furnishes, establishes, or contributes toward proof and the determination is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Material evidence goes to a fact at issue that is significant under the substantive law of the case and the determination is reviewed under a de novo standard.

10. Generally, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not appropriate on direct appeal. Such claims usually are raised in the context of a postconviction motion filed with the district court so that an evidentiary hearing can be held to resolve any dispute in material fact. This court can consider such a claim on direct appeal, however, when the record is sufficient to consider the claim.

11. When the district court holds an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this court applies a de novo standard of review to the district court's ultimate conclusions of law.

12. In order to demonstrate that trial counsel was ineffective, a defendant must establish two essential elements: (1) counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient and (2) but for counsel's deficient performance there is a reasonable probability that the movant would have obtained a more favorable outcome. To prove counsel's performance was deficient, the movant must show that counsel made such serious errors that counsel's legal representation was less than what is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The movant has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's representation was deficient and prejudiced the defendant.

13. Although one error may not warrant reversal, cumulative errors, considered collectively, may warrant reversal where the totality of the circumstances demonstrate the errors substantially prejudiced and denied the defendant a fair trial.

Shawn E. Minihan, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before HILL, P.J., MALONE and STANDRIDGE, JJ.

STANDRIDGE, J.

Bobby D. Edwards was convicted of aggravated robbery. On appeal, he raises several arguments: (1) The State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of aggravated robbery; (2) the district court erred in instructing the jury on aggravated robbery; (3) the district court erred in allowing the State's expert witness to testify at trial; (4) the district court erred when it limited Edwards' direct examination of his expert witness; (5) defense counsel provided him with ineffective assistance; and (6) cumulative errors deprived him of a fair trial. For the reasons stated below, we affirm Edwards' conviction.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

During the evening of September 15, 2008, police arrested Edwards and transported him to the hospital after receiving reports of his causing a disturbance. Edwards appeared to be extremely intoxicated. According to tests conducted at the hospital, Edwards had a blood-alcohol concentration of .375. Because Edwards was fighting with and spitting on hospital staff, he was given a 2.5–milligram, intramuscular injection of Haldol—an anti-psychotic medication that can be given to severely intoxicated individuals who are behaving aggressively to calm them down. Edwards was given a second 2.5–milligram injection of Haldol 10 minutes later. After administering the Haldol, hospital staff reported that Edwards calmed down and went to sleep.

At 1:15 a.m. on September 16, hospital staff reported that Edwards tried getting out of his bed, so he was placed in restraints. At 2:30 a.m., staff reported that Edwards was mumbling incoherently at times. At 4:30 a.m., Edwards sat up but still had slurred speech. At 6 a.m., hospital staff reported that Edwards appeared “clinically sober” and, thus, discharged him from the hospital sometime between 6:30 and 7 a.m.

Shortly after 7:30 that morning, Kristie Zenner heard someone knocking on the front door of an apartment she shared with her boyfriend and her 6–year–old son. Zenner's boyfriend had just left for work, so she thought it was him knocking on the door because he had forgotten something. Zenner got out of bed, walked down the stairs to the first floor of the apartment, and opened the front door. Instead of her boyfriend, Zenner saw Edwards standing in front of her wearing hospital scrubs.

Although she did not know his name at the time, Zenner recognized Edwards as someone who lived in the apartment complex. On one prior occasion, Zenner allowed Edwards to use her phone—while standing outside her apartment—to call someone. After completing his call, Edwards returned the phone to Zenner without incident. Thus, Zenner did not think much of it when Edwards asked her that morning if he could use her phone. Zenner agreed but closed her front door before retrieving her phone for Edwards. After grabbing her phone off of her couch, Zenner turned around and saw Edwards standing near her. Zenner gave Edwards the phone and told him he could use it, but he needed to do so outside. Edwards took the phone but put it in the pocket of his scrubs. He then looked down at a coffee table next to him and saw a hammer lying on it. Zenner was in the process of moving and had been using the hammer to remove picture nails from her walls. Edwards picked the hammer up, pushed Zenner into a chair behind her, and swung the hammer at Zenner, hitting her in the head. After hitting her, the hammer fell out of Edwards' hand, so he began searching around for the hammer while, at the same time, struggling to keep Zenner seated in the chair.

Zenner managed to stand up from the chair, but Edwards, while standing behind her, placed her in a choke hold. Based on previous training she received in martial arts—and because she was slick from blood oozing from her head—Zenner was able to slip out of Edwards' choke hold. Zenner then saw her phone (which apparently had fallen out of Edwards' pocket during the struggle) lying on the chair. Zenner grabbed the phone, thinking she could quickly dial 911, but Edwards forcibly took the phone away from her before she could do so. Edwards then threw Zenner onto her couch. During her struggle with Edwards on the couch, Zenner yelled out “rape” a couple of times. Edwards responded by saying that he was not going to rape her, that he was just looking for the hammer and that he wanted to take his “evidence” and...