State v. Gallegos

Citation485 P.3d 622
Decision Date23 April 2021
Docket NumberNo. 121,685,121,685
Parties STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Carlos Antonio GALLEGOS, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Hope E. Faflick-Reynolds, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and Peter Maharry, of the same office, was on the brief for appellant.

Daniel G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Wilson, J.:

Carlos Antonio Gallegos challenges his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder in the killing of M.C. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

In July 2016, M.C. was staying with her boyfriend, Andr'a Jones, and his cousin, Lakieva Rowe, at the Oak Tree Inn in Kansas City, Kansas. On July 5, Jones and Rowe left together to go get some food. M.C. stayed behind in the hotel room because she had plans to meet with the defendant, Gallegos.

Jones and Rowe returned to the hotel and waited outside in their car. When Jones began to worry because M.C. stopped responding to his text messages, he and Rowe went to the hotel room to check on M.C. They found M.C. lying on the floor of the hotel room. M.C. was not breathing, nor did she have a pulse. They had the front desk call 911. When authorities arrived at the scene, M.C. was declared dead. Her body had injuries consistent with ligature strangulation.

Surveillance footage from the hotel confirmed that Gallegos and his car were at the Oak Tree Inn at the time of M.C.'s murder. Gallegos was arrested on July 6.

During a police interview, Gallegos initially denied meeting with M.C. on the day of the murder but eventually confessed to killing her. He explained that a few days before, he had arranged to pay M.C. for sex, but when he arrived for the meeting, M.C. and a black man robbed him of $100.

On the day M.C. was killed, Gallegos again arranged to meet with her at the Oak Tree Inn. After having sex with her in exchange for $100, he told M.C. to call the man who had previously robbed him. He said he "was determined to have [the man] kill me or to kill him." M.C. refused to cooperate and began to scream, which angered Gallegos further. Gallegos removed a shoelace from one of his shoes and strangled M.C. with it. During the police interview, Gallegos said, "I did to her what I did because she robbed me. ... And that's why the revenge. It's sweet."

The State charged Gallegos with first-degree premeditated murder. At the trial, a forensic pathologist testified for the State and estimated it would have taken two to five minutes of compression on M.C.'s neck before she died of strangulation. The State also presented video surveillance footage from the hotel that showed M.C., Jones, and Rowe leaving their hotel room together. A few minutes later, the footage showed M.C., along with Gallegos, returning to the room. Shortly thereafter, Gallegos exited the room alone.

Gallegos' testimony at trial was consistent with his police interview. He testified that he arranged for the July 5 meeting with M.C. through a website and that he planned to use M.C. to lure Jones back to the room. He claimed that "[his] intentions were to go and unarm [Jones] and break his hands so he would only have his mouth so then he could only ask for money, not take it from other people."

Gallegos stated that he arrived at the hotel, engaged in sex with M.C., then paid her. He then told her she needed to contact Jones, but M.C. refused. Gallegos became angry and told her, "[I]f you don't call him, the problem's gonna be with you." M.C. still refused and began yelling for help. Gallegos removed the lace out of one of his shoes and began to strangle M.C. with it.

When asked how long it took before he let go of the laces, Gallegos responded, "I wouldn't know what to say .... Maybe 50 seconds." When asked what he was feeling during that time, he said, "Like I said, I squeezed her. So automatically when you squeeze someone's neck like the man that was up here testifying and you cut off somebody's oxygen, they're just like struggling trying to get air." Gallegos said he then went into the bathroom and washed his face and hands. He said he did not think about her condition because he was in shock. He picked up his shoelace and left the hotel.

Gallegos also testified that he had been drinking on the day of the murder, which was not unusual for him as he usually drinks eight beers a day. He stated that he started drinking around 12 p.m. and that he had six beers before meeting with M.C.

At the jury instruction conference, Gallegos requested instructions on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter and voluntary intoxication. The district court denied Gallegos' request, finding that the evidence did not support a voluntary manslaughter instruction because his interaction with M.C. was not sufficient provocation to "deprive a reasonable man of self-control or to cause him to act out of passion rather than reason." The district court also found that there was insufficient evidence that Gallegos was so intoxicated he could not form the requisite intent for first-degree murder.

The jury convicted Gallegos of first-degree premeditated murder. Gallegos timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

Gallegos argues four issues on appeal. First, he contends the district court erred by declining to give a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. Second, the district court erred in declining to give a voluntary intoxication instruction. Third, the State committed prosecutorial error in closing arguments. And finally, the cumulative errors of his trial deprived him of a fair trial. Finding no error, we affirm his conviction.

The district court did not err in declining to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

Gallegos first claims that the district court erred by declining to give a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of first-degree murder. Gallegos does not deny that he killed M.C., however, he contends that his trial testimony supported a finding that the killing was done either in the heat of passion or a sudden quarrel, thus warranting a voluntary manslaughter instruction as a lesser included offense.

The State responds that a voluntary manslaughter instruction would not have been appropriate because Gallegos' interaction with M.C. was not a legally sufficient provocation from an objective standpoint. Because there is no evidence that reasonably justifies the giving of a voluntary manslaughter instruction, we agree with the State and find that the district court did not err when it declined to give this instruction.

Standard of Review

This court reviews the denial of a requested jury instruction under the following standard of review:

"When analyzing jury instruction issues, we follow a three-step process: (1) determining whether the appellate court can or should review the issue, i.e., whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) considering the merits of the claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether the error requires reversal, i.e., whether the error can be deemed harmless.’ " State v. McLinn , 307 Kan. 307, 317, 409 P.3d 1 (2018).

"The ‘first and third step are interrelated in that whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue will affect [this court's] reversibility inquiry at the third step.’ " McLinn , 307 Kan. at 317, 409 P.3d 1. When the issue is preserved for review, any error is reversible if "we determine that there is a ‘reasonable probability that the error will or did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.’ " State v. Uk , 311 Kan. 393, 397, 461 P.3d 32 (2020) (citing State v. Plummer , 295 Kan. 156, 168, 283 P.3d 202 [2012] ).

To assess whether there was error, we utilize an unlimited standard of review of the entire record—viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the requesting party (here, the defendant)—to consider whether the instructions were both legally and factually appropriate. State v. Keyes , 312 Kan. 103, 107, 472 P.3d 78 (2020) ; State v. Barlett , 308 Kan. 78, 84, 418 P.3d 1253 (2018).

Discussion

At trial, Gallegos requested an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. This means he properly preserved the issue for review on appeal. On the merits, the instruction would have been legally appropriate because voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of first-degree murder. State v. Parker , 311 Kan. 255, 264, 459 P.3d 793 (2020) (citing State v. Gallegos , 286 Kan. 869, 874, 190 P.3d 226 [2008] ). Thus, the analysis next considers whether the instruction was factually appropriate.

Here, the evidence does not support Gallegos' claim. "Voluntary manslaughter is knowingly killing a human being committed: (1) Upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion; or (2) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified use of deadly force ...." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5404(a). The core elements of voluntary manslaughter are an intentional killing and a legally sufficient provocation. State v. Campbell , 308 Kan. 763, 775, 423 P.3d 539 (2018) (citing State v. Hayes , 299 Kan. 861, 864, 327 P.3d 414 [2014] ).

Whether provocation was legally sufficient is based on an objective standard. State v. Gentry , 310 Kan. 715, 723, 449 P.3d 429 (2019). To be legally sufficient, a provocation must deprive a reasonable person of self-control and cause that person to act out of passion rather than reason. Hayes , 299 Kan. at 866, 327 P.3d 414.

Gallegos contends that his trial testimony supported an instruction of voluntary manslaughter based on either heat of passion or sudden quarrel. While neither of these terms are statutorily defined, this court has defined heat of passion as " ‘any intense or vehement emotional excitement of the kind prompting violent and aggressive action.’ " State v. Wade , ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • State v. Ford
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 10 Febrero 2023
    ...fundamental failure in the proceeding. We find that Ford inadequately briefed this issue so we consider it waived or abandoned. See Gallegos, 313 Kan. at 277 issues not adequately briefed are considered waived or abandoned). B. Motion for Mistrial Based on Hung Jury More facts will provide ......
  • State v. Spilman
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 7 Julio 2023
    ...... erred when he commented about the honesty of the prosecution. witnesses, this error did not prejudice Spilman's ability. to obtain a fair trial. And the cumulative error rule does. not apply if there are no errors or only a single error. State v. Gallegos , 313 Kan. 262, 277, 485 P.3d 622. (2021). . .          Accordingly,. we find no cumulative trial error undermined Spilman's. ability to obtain a fair trial. . .           Is. KORA unconstitutional as a violation of the ......
  • State v. Turner
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 28 Octubre 2022
    ...... Secondly, Turner correctly notes that while intoxication is a. defense to attempted battery. . 34 . . under Kansas law, it is unavailable as a defense to assault. under California law. See State v. Gallegos , 313. Kan. 262, 271, 485 P.3d 622 (2021) (voluntary intoxication. may negate the intent element of a specific intent crime);. Williams , 26 Cal.4th at 789 (voluntary intoxication. not available as a defense to assault). . .           Turner's. ......
  • State v. Liles
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 16 Julio 2021
    ...preserved this issue for appellate review because she requested the instruction modification during trial. See State v. Gallegos , 313 Kan. 262, 267, 485 P.3d 622 (2021) (defendant preserved challenge to omission of instruction on voluntary manslaughter by requesting the instruction at tria......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT