State v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 08 October 2021
• Docket Number: 827,121
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas
• Parties: State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Tyjuana L. Jackson, Appellant.

State of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Tyjuana L. Jackson, Appellant.

No. 121, 827

Court of Appeals of Kansas

October 8, 2021

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; Michael A. Russell, judge.

Carol Longenecker Schmidt, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Daniel G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, Marc A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before Buser, P.J., Powell and Hurst, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

POWELL, J.

Tyjuana L. Jackson was convicted by a jury of her peers of one count of voluntary manslaughter after she shot and killed an innocent bystander at a nightclub during an altercation between herself and her paramour's wife. Jackson now appeals, arguing (1) jury instruction errors entitle her to a new trial and (2) her sentence is illegal. After a careful review of the record, we find the district court's failure to give a reckless involuntary manslaughter instruction to be harmless error but otherwise affirm the jury instructions given. As to Jackson's sentence, we find no error in the district court's calculation of her criminal history score, nor is the district court's restitution order illegal. Thus, we affirm Jackson's conviction and sentence.

Factual and Procedural Background

A five-year affair between Jackson and Phillip Watson led to the death of Michael Williams, an innocent bystander, on March 17, 2018. LaShonda Watson, Phillip's wife, was aware of the affair, but she testified she believed the affair between the two had ended at the time of the altercation.

On March 15, 2018, Jackson and Phillip were exchanging text messages when Phillip sent Jackson a message stating, in part: "Now it seems [LaShonda] wants to cause me major problems and I don[']t [want] nobody getting hurt, cause she's talking about killing me and whomever she caught me wit[h] until our divorce is [f]inal." Jackson, who took the stand in her own defense at trial, testified that she felt frightened and threatened because she believed LaShonda was referring to her in the text message.

The next day, on the evening of March 16, 2018, Jackson met a friend at The Firelight Lounge in Kansas City, Kansas. According to Jackson, at some point in the evening she went into her purse to retrieve a cigarette lighter and found a handgun. She did not inspect the contents of her handbag before arriving at the nightclub that night, and she believed Phillip put the gun in her purse. Although the club had metal detectors, the firearm was not detected by club security.

While Jackson was still at the club, Phillip and LaShonda arrived at The Firelight Lounge shortly after midnight. There, the husband and wife met up with LaShonda's aunt, LaDonna Chandler. LaDonna's boyfriend, Charles Brooks, was working security at the nightclub that evening.

Jackson was talking with a friend at the bar when she decided to go to the dance floor. LaShonda and LaDonna were standing near the dance floor talking to Phillip. Because the club was crowded, Jackson bumped into LaDonna, who was standing near her as Jackson made her way to the dance floor. LaDonna then turned around, bumped into Jackson, and said, "Don't fucking shove me." According to Jackson's testimony, LaShonda then yelled at Jackson, "Bitch, I'm tired of you. I'm going to kill you." LaShonda mentioned Jackson "messing with" her husband. Jackson testified she recalled the text message Phillip had sent her the day before and became frightened.

LaDonna, LaShonda, and Jackson began to physically engage with one another, which was described as "bumping" and "shoving" each other. Brooks began to lead Jackson away, but then LaShonda took one last punch at Jackson, which knocked off her wig. Jackson testified that as she bent down to retrieve her wig, she thought she saw LaShonda reach for a gun.

Jackson began to dig around in her purse, and Brooks began physically restraining Jackson, fearing she was carrying a firearm. Nevertheless, Jackson was able to draw the handgun out of her purse. Brooks tried to force her hand up in an attempt to prevent anyone from getting shot, but Jackson resisted. Brooks testified at the same time he was "begging" for Jackson to give him the gun. During this struggle between Jackson and Brooks, Jackson fired one shot. According to testimony at trial, she kept pulling the trigger to shoot, but the gun jammed. Brooks' hand had an abrasion, and his glove was damaged by the gun when Jackson fired it.

The single shot Jackson was able to fire hit an innocent bystander, Williams, in the head and killed him. Jackson and Brooks walked over and looked at Williams' body, and Jackson eventually surrendered her gun to Brooks. Upon doing so, Jackson then fled the scene. She turned herself in to police nine days later.

Jackson testified that when she drew the gun, she intended "to defend [her]self," but, when repeatedly asked, never clarified what she meant by "defend [her]self" and if that meant she intended to fire the gun. She did testify, "I don't-I don't know about- anything about a gun, so I just knew that if somebody had a gun and they were going to pull it out on me, I was going to pull one back out." According to her, as soon as she grabbed the gun out of her bag, "immediately Charles [Brooks] grabbed [her] hand and the gun went off."

The altercation and shooting were captured on surveillance camera footage, which was played for the jury.

The State charged Jackson with first-degree premeditated murder of Williams, based on a transferred intent theory, and aggravated battery of Brooks.

The district court instructed the jury on first-degree premeditated murder, along with the lesser included offenses of second-degree intentional murder, voluntary manslaughter under a theory of an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed which justified the use of deadly force (imperfect self-defense), and involuntary manslaughter under a theory of a lawful act in an unlawful manner. The district court also instructed the jury on self-defense.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter and acquitted Jackson of aggravated battery. On August 9, 2019, the district court sentenced Jackson to a standard term of 102 months' imprisonment and ordered Jackson to pay $5, 000 in restitution to the Crime Victims Compensation Board.

Jackson timely appeals.

Analysis

Jackson raises seven arguments on appeal, claiming the district court erred by: (1) instructing the jury in a way that precluded consideration of involuntary manslaughter; (2) giving an erroneous self-defense instruction; (3) failing to instruct the jury on the requested lesser included offense of reckless involuntary manslaughter; (4) committing cumulative error as its handling of the jury instructions deprived her of a fair trial; (5) imposing an illegal sentence when it classified her prior identity theft conviction as a person felony; (6) imposing an illegal restitution order because it included no plan for repayment; and (7) violating her rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when it sentenced her to an increased sentence based upon her prior convictions without requiring the State to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

I. Did the District Court Give Erroneous Jury Instructions?

When analyzing jury instruction issues, we follow a three-step process by:

"(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 Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510, 286 P.3d 195 (2012)

The "first and third step are interrelated in that whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue will affect our reversibility inquiry at the third step." State v. Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. 198, 209, 352 P.3d 511 (2015). If the subject jury instruction was requested and not given or objected to and the challenging party does not argue that the failure to instruct violated a constitutional right, any instructional error is reversible only if there is a reasonable probability the error affected the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record. State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 161-63, 168, 283 P.3d 202 (2012). If the jury instruction was not requested or was not objected to, we review the instruction for clear error. State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307, 318, 409 P.3d 1 (2018).

At the second step, we consider whether the jury instruction was legally and factually appropriate, reviewing the entire record on appeal de novo. Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 210.

A. The district court did not err in instructing the jury to consider voluntary manslaughter before considering involuntary manslaughter.

Jackson argues the district court erred when it failed to instruct the jury to simultaneously consider voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. She complains the standard language of the Pattern Instructions of Kansas (PIK) wrongly prevents jurors from considering involuntary manslaughter until they first consider voluntary manslaughter.

Jackson did not object to the given instructions at trial. Therefore, we apply the clear error standard and will only reverse if an error occurred and we are firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the instruction error had not occurred. As the party claiming a clear error, Jackson has the burden to demonstrate the necessary prejudice. See McLinn, 307 Kan. at 318.

Instruction No. 8 reads:

"If you do not agree that the defendant is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree, you should then consider the lesser

...