State v. Haberlein
| Citation | 290 P.3d 640 |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 102,254.,102,254. |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Robert Martin HABERLEIN, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. Second-degree intentional murder is a lesser degree of homicide than first-degree premeditated murder and thus, if sufficient evidence of all of the elements of the greater offense has been presented by the State, an instruction on the lesser is legally and factually appropriate and should be given by the district judge. However, when a defendant challenges the judge's failure to give the lesser included offense instruction for the first time on appeal, the defendant must demonstrate that the failure was clearly erroneous, i.e., the defendant must firmly convince the appellate court that the giving of the instruction would have made a difference in the verdict. In a case with peculiarly abundant evidence of premeditation—including testimony that the armed defendant announced to accomplices before a planned robbery that something more serious was about to happen, as well as physical and testimonial evidence that he and an accomplice recaptured the robbery victim after an attempted escape and beat her for up to 10 minutes with several objects and then shot her for a third time—the district judge's failure to give a lesser included offense instruction on second-degree intentional murder was not clearly erroneous.
2. Neither the phrase “force, threat, or deception” nor the phrase “to facilitate flight or the commission of any crime” in the Kansas kidnapping statute sets forth alternative means of committing the crime of kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping.
3. A jury instruction on the elements of a charged crime generally should not be broader than the charge contained in the information. An instruction on aggravated robbery that includes the phrase “from the person or presence” rather than the information's “from the presence” of the victim does not violate this general rule. A taking from the person of a victim necessarily constitutes a taking from the presence of the victim.
4. A constitutional ground for reversal of a criminal conviction asserted for the first time on appeal is not properly before the court for review. The appellate court will not apply a caselaw exception to this rule when a defendant has not explained why such an exception is appropriate.
5. One error cannot support application of the cumulative error doctrine.
6. A constitutional ground for vacation of criminal sentence asserted for the first time on appeal is not properly before the court for review. The appellate court will not apply a caselaw exception to this rule when a defendant has not explained why such an exception is appropriate.
Korey A. Kaul, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Sheryl L. Lidtke, deputy district attorney, argued the cause, and Jerome A. Gorman, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.
Robert Martin Haberlein appeals his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. He argues: (1) the district judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on second-degree intentional murder; (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove what he claims are two sets of alternative means of committing aggravated kidnapping; (3) the district judge erred in issuing an instruction on aggravated robbery that was broader than the language in the information; (4) the district judge erred in certifying him as an adult without having a jury make that determination; (5) cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial; and (6) the Kansas hard 50 sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. We affirm.
The State charged Robert Martin Haberlein with first-degree murder, premeditated, or, in the alternative, felony murder with the underlying felony of aggravated robbery; aggravated kidnapping; and aggravated robbery, in the November 2005 death of Robin Bell.
Bell was a manager at a Dollar General store in Bonner Springs. On the night of the crimes, Bell's husband woke up about 1 a.m. and discovered that Bell was not home from work. He drove from Tonganoxie to Bonner Springs and arrived at the store about 1:30 a.m. He saw his wife's car still parked at the store and called the police from across the street. Police responded to the scene and located a deceased female, later identified as Bell, in the back room of the store.
Several police officers and crime scene investigators testified about their response to the scene and their subsequent investigation. Officers forced their way into the Dollar General, checked the front of the building, and then exited and re-entered through the back door. Just inside of the back door, officers located the body of Bell with “serious injuries about her head and face” and saw “a tremendous amount of blood on the floor.” Bell had suffered severe trauma from “[b]lunt force items,” including a step ladder, a tripod, and a shovel, which had “blood all over them.”
Officers did not know until a later autopsy that Bell also had been shot, once through her right cheek and once just under the skin on her scalp. An officer who attended the autopsy described Bell's injuries as follows:
Forensic pathologist Erik Mitchell also testified regarding Bell's injuries. Mitchell noted the “dramatic evidence” of a “tremendous number of physical injuries.” Mitchell identified several injuries to Bell's face and head, as well as two gunshot wounds. Bell also had a broken finger on each hand, abrasions and bruises on her legs and arms, and broken ribs. Mitchell identified 48 separate injuries on Bell's body, but he could not tell the order in which they occurred. Bell had two injuries to the brain that would result in death if not treated, and Mitchell noted other injuries also capable of causing death. Mitchell ultimately said Bell's cause of death was “extensive crush injuries,” and he identified the case as a homicide.
At the crime scene, officers also found the cash register drawer in the front of the store open, and it showed an incomplete sale time stamped 20:23:01. A telephone in a back office was pulled out of the wall; a money bag was lying on a desk in the office; and cash drawers were lying on the floor of a safe. Roughly $2,000 was missing from the store.
Officers also observed a bloodstain on the floor of the store and on the inside of the back door leading to the outside. The landing area outside of the door showed more blood. A blood trail led from the back door toward the rear of a Goodwill Store to the north.
The State called Detective Victoria Fogarty of the Bonner Springs Police Department as a witness about the investigation. In September 2007, Fogarty was still working on the case when she received a report about a runaway named Christa Lewis. Haberlein called the police station to talk about the report and said that Lewis was his girlfriend. Lewis and Haberlein then came to the police station.
Lewis, who was 18 years old at the time of Haberlein's trial, testified about her relationship with Haberlein and her knowledge of the robbery. She was friends with Haberlein, John Backus, and A.R. during high school. Lewis testified that the four talked about the robbery for a few days before it happened and that she participated in the search for a place to rob. Lewis did not end up going to the Dollar General with her friends, but she gave the three others the keys to another friend's car for use in the robbery. The three came back to Lewis' house the day after the crimes to watch the news for a story about the robbery and murder. Backus and Haberlein threatened Lewis and said they would hurt her if she told anyone. Lewis also got money from Backus a few days later in exchange for providing the car.
When Lewis and Haberlein came to the police station, another officer initially spoke with Haberlein but then requested assistance from Fogarty. After being read his Miranda rights, Haberlein brought up the Bell homicide. Haberlein initially said that he acted only as a lookout and implicated others, but the police recognized that Haberlein shared details of the crime that had not been released to the public.
The officers took Haberlein to the Kansas City Police Department to videotape a formal statement. After the statement, Haberlein was transported to Wyandotte County Detention Center, where he was held while officers spent several days attempting to corroborateHaberlein's original account of the events. Officers then interviewed Haberlein again, and he began to change his story.
After interviewing Haberlein, officers contacted A.R., who had been Haberlein's 15-year-old girlfriend at the time of the crime. When A.R. and her parents arrived at the police station, officers told them that they were attempting to get background information on Haberlein. After about 20 minutes, Fogarty spoke with A.R. alone. A.R. explained that she was at the Dollar General at the time of the crimes, and Fogarty read A.R. her Miranda rights. Fogarty later said that A.R. acted afraid and said she had been told by Backus and Haberlein that she would get hurt if she revealed what she knew. After A.R. talked about her version of what happened...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dupree
...no error or only a single error, however, there is no error to accumulate and no basis to reverse a conviction. See State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 212, 290 P.3d 640 (2012). We do not find any errors in Dupree's case, however. At most, we assume a possible violation of the speedy trial st......
-
State v. Charles
...¶ 4, 217 P.3d 15 [2009] [wording of complaint binding on State in pursuing its theory of case before a jury] ); see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 210, 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (State bound by complaint's “version of offense,” “theory” of case at trial). “An overbroad instruction is erroneous......
-
State v. Williams
...(assault a lesser included offense of aggravated assault).As to factual appropriateness, our standard was set out in State v. Haberlein , 296 Kan. 195, 290 P.3d 640 (2012). There, the issue was whether the defendant, charged with first-degree premeditated murder, was entitled to an instruct......
-
State v. Jones
...an opportunity to weigh in, our review of that decision on such a question of law would have been plenary. See State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 203, 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (review of question on whether appellate issue preserved unlimited). Likewise, interpretation and construction of statute......