State v. Hilt
| Decision Date | 15 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 114,682,114,682 |
| Citation | 307 Kan. 112,406 P.3d 905 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Dustin Brian HILT, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Randall L. Hodgkinson, Topeka, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and Kimberly Streit Vogelsberg, of the same office, was on the brief for appellant.
Jacob M. Gontesky, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, James Crux, legal intern, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
Defendant Dustin Brian Hilt challenges his sentence for first-degree premeditated murder on three grounds: the district judge's decision to remove a juror during deliberations, allegedly reversible prosecutorial error during closing argument, and an imperfect oral in-court pronouncement of the ultimate hard 50 sentence.
We reject Hilt's arguments and affirm.
Hilt's 2010 jury convictions of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery arose out of the violent death of his former girlfriend, Keighley Alyea. In State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 322 P.3d 367 (2014), this court affirmed Hilt's convictions and his grid sentences but vacated his hard 50 life sentence because it was based on fact-finding by a judge, a predicate procedure rejected by the United States Supreme Court as unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment. See Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013).
Hilt's case was remanded to the district court for resentencing, and evidence was submitted before a jury on whether he should receive a hard 50 sentence over multiple days in June 2015. The State presented much of the same grisly evidence regarding the circumstances of Alyea's death that it had presented at Hilt's first trial. Another recitation of that evidence would serve no purpose here.
Certain other evidence at the resentencing trial demands mention because of its bearing on this appeal.
The State's case included testimony from several forensic experts, including evidence about bloodstains found in Alyea's car and on clothes worn by her and by Hilt and his two codefendants on the night of the murder. DNA testing showed large quantities of Alyea's blood on Hilt's clothes. Further, during police interviews in the days immediately following the murder, detectives noted that Hilt's hands and wrists were swollen and that he had cuts and abrasions on his hands and forearms. No similar injuries were found on his codefendants.
Hilt also testified in his defense during the resentencing trial; he had not testified in the original trial. He said that he had turned 18 a few days before the murder and had no criminal record beyond a handful of traffic tickets at the time.
Hilt claimed that there had been no plan to hurt or rob Alyea; he merely wanted a ride from her. After Alyea picked him and his friends up and allowed him to drive, one of his codefendants "just flipped out" and started hitting Alyea on the back of the head. Hilt testified he did not know what to do and "just started driving real fast trying to get away." At some point, under the codefendant's direction, Hilt stopped the car, and the codefendant put Alyea in the trunk. Hilt testified that at the time he believed Alyea was already dead.
Again following the codefendant's instructions, Hilt drove to the rural field where Alyea's body would eventually be found. During the trip, Hilt heard Alyea screaming for help from the trunk. Hilt testified that, after arriving at the field, he thought, Hilt said that the other codefendant chased Alyea down and began kicking her and hitting her with the pipe. According to Hilt, he tried to put his hand over Alyea's head to protect her and push the codefendant back, "but it really didn't work." After Hilt's attempt failed, the codefendant who had hit Alyea in the car repeatedly stabbed her.
Hilt denied striking or stabbing Alyea. He said that he had lied to police when they began questioning him because he was not sure whether Alyea was dead, and he did not want to get into trouble. Continuing to blame the codefendant who launched the violence, Hilt claimed that he had not called 911 anonymously because that codefendant told him not to do so.
After Hilt testified, the defense rested. The State called no rebuttal witnesses.
During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor began by highlighting the jury's role in the proceeding.
The prosecutor then focused on the blood evidence establishing that Alyea's blood was on Hilt's clothes and argued that Hilt could not have been merely a passive and unwilling participant as he claimed, but must have been "an active member of the trio that went out and killed her in a brutal manner on that day." The prosecutor also highlighted the injuries to Hilt's hands and arms and the lack of similar injuries on the codefendants. After doing so, the prosecutor posed the rhetorical question: "[I]s that a standby person not doing anything, or is that the person wielding the knife or the pipe?"
During defense counsel's closing, he painted a picture of Hilt as a passive character caught up in the murder, who did not know what to do or how to save Alyea.
The prosecutor began his rebuttal by noting that the State did not need to establish which defendant struck which blow.
The State then told the jurors that they should look at the clothes that Hilt was wearing that night because
Throughout the trial, the district judge repeatedly admonished the members of the jury that they should not consult outside sources when considering the case. After the jury was selected, the district judge gave the jurors one such instruction, which was exemplary of similar instructions he gave before each court recess. The admonishment particularly focused on not using the internet to do additional research, but the judge also told the jurors repeatedly that they would "have all the evidence that [they] need in this case presented in this courtroom."
After deliberations began, the court received a question from the jury about whether one of their number should be excused from service. The question read: In response, the district judge and parties requested the name of the offending juror. After learning the name of the juror, the district judge had the juror brought out for questioning.
The juror told the judge in the presence of the prosecutors, defense counsel, and Hilt that during deliberations he had mentioned that he and Hilt both dropped out of the same high school. When asked by the other jurors how he knew that, he told them that he had seen it in an old yearbook. The juror explained to the court that he had looked only at Hilt's picture and at no other information. When pressed as to what prompted him to look at the yearbook, he told the court that one of the witnesses had testified that she went to that high school, and he had originally been looking for her picture. He then admitted that he had found her picture as well. In response to a question about whether he had accessed the yearbook from his phone or other electronic device, he informed the court that he had looked at an actual physical yearbook that was in his home.
The prosecutor confronted the juror with the judge's admonition to "don't do that stuff and don't look outside of what the evidence is during the time of the trial." The juror agreed that the judge had repeatedly told the jury not to do those types of things. When asked, the juror said that he believed he could nevertheless remain fair and impartial.
The judge then sent the juror back to the deliberations room so that the judge and the parties could discuss how to handle the situation.
After the juror left, the judge said, "Yes, he violated my order," and expressed concern about whether the juror had been forthright when questioned. Although the juror had initially admitted to looking up Hilt's picture, it was only after additional questioning that he admitted he had also looked up one of the witnesses. The State agreed with the judge's assessment that the juror had violated the admonition. Hilt's attorney sounded less sure,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson
...or factual inferences with no evidentiary foundation. See State v. Wilson , 309 Kan. 67, 78, 431 P.3d 841 (2018) ; State v. Hilt , 307 Kan. 112, 124, 406 P.3d 905 (2017)." State v. Ballou , 310 Kan. 591, 596, 448 P.3d 479 (2019).Discussion Patterson contends the italicized portions of the p......
-
State v. Ballou
...or factual inferences with no evidentiary foundation. See State v. Wilson , 309 Kan. 67, 78, 431 P.3d 841 (2018) ; State v. Hilt , 307 Kan. 112, 124, 406 P.3d 905 (2017).1.1 The prosecutor erred. Ballou mainly argues the prosecutor's expansive interpretation of "on or about" amounted to a m......
-
State v. Moore
...or factual inferences with no evidentiary foundation. See State v. Wilson , 309 Kan. 67, 78, 431 P.3d 841 (2018) ; State v. Hilt , 307 Kan. 112, 124, 406 P.3d 905 (2017)." State v. Ballou , 310 Kan. 591, 596, 448 P.3d 479 (2019)."In determining whether a particular statement falls outside o......
-
State v. Coleman, No. 120,246
...to be categorically unconstitutional. This court continues to uphold such sentences in appropriate cases. See e.g. State v. Hilt , 307 Kan. 112, 129, 406 P.3d 905 (2017) ; State v. Alford , 308 Kan. 1336, 1342, 429 P.3d 197 (2018) ; and State v. Kahler , 307 Kan. 374, 414, 410 P.3d 105 (201......