State v. Knighten
| Decision Date | 24 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | 110,718. |
| Citation | 51 Kan.App.2d 417,347 P.3d 1200 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Travis M. KNIGHTEN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Corrine E. Gunning, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Julie A. Koon and Boyd K. Isherwood, assistant district attorneys, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before STANDRIDGE, P.J., GREEN, J., and JOHNSON, S.J.
Travis M. Knighten appeals from his convictions for one count of second-degree intentional murder and one count of aggravated battery, arguing the district court erred in denying his challenge based on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), in failing to require his presence during a critical part of the proceedings, and in failing to deny his request for an instruction on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. Knighten also argues the district court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by sentencing him without requiring either the aggravating factors or his criminal history score to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
At around 2 a.m. on May 7, 2011, Carl Meridy, Kedrick Harrison, and Mario Brown went to a night club located at the corner of 13th and Hillside in Wichita. When they got to the club, it was closed, so they hung out in the parking lot. There were approximately 50–80 people in the parking lot at the time. Many people were leaving in their cars.
While Meridy was standing in the parking lot, he saw a dark-colored sport utility vehicle (SUV) pull up. He and another witness saw a hand holding a gun reach out of the front passenger side window of the SUV and fire shots. Meridy was struck by bullets in the right leg and the left arm. Brown was also struck by bullets in the back, shoulder, chest, and thigh. Brown and Meridy were both transported to a hospital. Meridy was treated and survived to testify at trial. Brown ultimately was pronounced dead at 3:35 a.m.
Witnesses at the scene described the SUV as a black vehicle with a white roof. They could not provide an exact make and model but told police it looked boxy, like a military vehicle. Later, the police recovered security footage belonging to a neighboring business and were able to determine that the SUV was a Toyota FJ Cruiser. The police identified Addison Buck as the owner of the vehicle. When interviewed, Buck told police that she believed her boyfriend, Arthur Gary, had the SUV on the night of the shooting.
The police were not able to immediately locate Gary and believed he may have left Wichita. In December 2011, about 7 months after the shooting incident, Detective Tim Relph learned that Gary might be back in town. Relph attempted to contact Gary through Buck. Gary later called Relph and agreed to meet him. When they met, Gary told Relph that four people were with him in the SUV at the time of the shooting: Jasper Gray, Ebony James, Dashawn Robertson, and Knighten. Gary said he was driving and Knighten was sitting in the front passenger seat. As they drove through the parking lot of the club, someone started walking toward the SUV and gesturing. Gary then saw Knighten pull a gun out of his pants pocket and fire it.
Knighten was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated battery. He pled not guilty to both counts, and his case proceeded to jury trial. After voir dire concluded, both the State and Knighten raised Batson challenges. Knighten's Batson challenge was based on the State's decision to strike two of the four potential African–American jurors from the jury pool. The State, on the other hand, claimed that Knighten had struck a disproportionate number of white males from the jury pool. The district court denied both Batson challenges.
At trial, the jury heard testimony from all the passengers in the SUV except Knighten. Gary passed away prior to trial, so his preliminary examination testimony was read to the jury. Gary testified that he was driving the SUV and Knighten was in the passenger seat at the time of the shooting. He said that a man he did not know started walking up to the SUV making gestures. He observed Knighten take a gun out of his pants pocket and fire it. Gary also stated that after the shooting, Knighten told him that he was sorry that the incident had happened in the vehicle.
Ebony testified that she was sitting in the back seat on the passenger side and that Knighten was in the front passenger seat. She said she put her head down as soon as she heard shots and did not know whether the shots came from inside or outside the vehicle. She testified that she never actually saw a gun.
Jasper testified that she was sitting in the middle of the back seat of the SUV at the time of the shooting and Knighten was in the front passenger seat. Jasper said she also put her head down as soon as she heard shots and did not see where the shots were coming from. This testimony, however, conflicted with earlier statements she made in an interview with Relph when she identified Knighten as the individual who fired the gunshots.
Robertson testified that he was in the back middle seat and, like the rest of the occupants, confirmed that Knighten was in the front passenger seat. Robertson said that when the group got to the parking lot of the club, somebody came up on the SUV like “they was feeling some kind of war.” Robertson testified that he did not see a gun or weapon of any kind in the hands of the person who was approaching the vehicle but that the individual was with a large group of guys walking up to the SUV. He testified that soon thereafter, Knighten started shooting at them.
Knighten did not testify. But his older sister, Sheronda Knighten, and his cousins, Kendra Hunter and Shaquala Horn, all testified that Knighten was babysitting Sheronda's daughter on the night of the shooting.
After the close of evidence, Knighten requested that the jury be instructed on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of the first-degree murder charge. The district court denied the request.
During deliberations, the jury asked two questions in writing. The district court held a conference in chambers with the attorneys to discuss the questions and how to respond. Then, the district court conducted a hearing on the record to discuss the proposed answers. Knighten was present at the hearing. During the hearing, the attorneys for both sides approved the proposed responses on the record. Knighten's attorney also informed the court that he had discussed the matter with Knighten and that Knighten seemed fine with the decision not to object to the answers. The district court judge then instructed the bailiff to deliver the written answers to the jury. The jury eventually found Knighten guilty of intentional second-degree murder and aggravated battery.
Prior to sentencing, Knighten filed a motion requesting a durational departure sentence. The motion was denied. The district court sentenced Knighten to 285 months' imprisonment for his second-degree murder conviction. It also sentenced him to 9 months' imprisonment for his aggravated battery conviction. The district court ordered that the sentences should run consecutively.
On appeal, Knighten claims the district court erred (1) by denying his Batson challenge without requiring the State to provide race-neutral reasons for striking two potential jurors; (2) by failing to include Knighten in its meeting with counsel to discuss questions asked by the jury during deliberations; (3) by denying his request to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter; (4) by sentencing him without requiring either the aggravating factors or his criminal history score to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and (5) by violating his constitutional rights. We discuss each of Knighten's claims of error in turn.
In Batson, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Equal Protection Clause forbids the State from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race. 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712. District courts use a three-step analysis to resolve Batson challenges, and each step has a distinct standard of review on appeal. State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 992, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012).
First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race. This court exercises plenary review over this question. In the second step, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to give race-neutral reasons for striking prospective jurors. In this step, the prosecutor only has the burden of production, not persuasion, so unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the answer, the offered reason will be deemed race-neutral. Finally, the district court must determine whether the defendant ultimately carried his or her burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Appellate courts review the district court's determination for abuse of discretion. McCullough, 293 Kan. at 992, 270 P.3d 1142.
At the beginning of the Batson hearing in this case, the following exchange occurred:
A short time later, after discussing the State's reasons for raising its Batson challenge,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dupree
...a chance to explain its strikes, which clearly contravened the steps of the Batson analysis. See also State v. Knighten, 51 Kan.App.2d 417, 424, 427, 347 P.3d 1200 (2015) (district court told parties it was “ ‘not asking for a race, gender or any kind of neutral explanation at this point,’ ......
-
State v. Kneisel
...22–3420(f). Therefore, the district court did not violate the statute by providing a written response. See State v. Knighten, 51 Kan.App.2d 417, 428–29, 347 P.3d 1200 (2015) (finding that in light of July 1, 2014 amendments, the district court did not violate K.S.A. 22–3420 by providing jur......
-
State v. Vaught
...motion in the district court. We find the error to have been harmless, as our court has found in similar cases. State v. Knighten, 51 Kan.App.2d 417, 431, 347 P.3d 1200 (2015) ; State v. Hunter, No. 110,729, 2015 WL 1310133, at *1 (Kan.App.2015) (unpublished opinion); State v. Smith, No. 10......
-
State v. Betty
...Supp. 22–3420(f). Therefore, the district court did not violate the statute by providing a written response. See State v. Knighten, 51 Kan.App.2d 417, 347 P.3d 1200 (2015) (finding that in light of July 1, 2014 amendments, the district court did not violate K.S.A. 22–3420 by providing jury ......