State v. Martin

Decision Date17 July 1987
Docket NumberNo. 59788,59788
Citation241 Kan. 732,740 P.2d 577
PartiesSTATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Frederick MARTIN, Appellant.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. While a party has the right to represent himself or be represented by counsel, he does not have the right to a hybrid representation. Further, the defendant who accepts counsel has no right to conduct his own trial or dictate the procedural course of his representation by counsel.

2. Where a defendant merely requests to be permitted to act as co-counsel, no waiver of the right to counsel is required.

3. The charge of unlawful possession of a firearm does not require proof of actual control of the weapon. A defendant may be guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm as an aider or abettor, regardless of whether or not he had control of the gun.

4. The crime of first-degree murder resulting from the perpetration of a separate and distinct felony which is inherently dangerous to human life is a separate and distinct statutory crime from that constituting the underlying felony, and a prosecution for both crimes does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy as proscribed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

5. An instruction derived from K.S.A. 21-3104, which defines the scope of this state's territorial jurisdiction, does not improperly shift the burden of disproving jurisdiction to the defendant.

6. Venue is a question of fact to be determined by the jury and, like any other fact, it may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Benjamin C. Wood, Chief Appellate Defender, was on the brief, for appellant.

Wesley K. Griffin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., and Nick A. Tomasic, Dist. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

HERD, Justice:

This is a criminal action where the defendant, Frederick Martin, takes a direct appeal from his convictions of felony first-degree murder, K.S.A. 21-3401; aggravated kidnapping, K.S.A. 21-3421; and unlawful possession of a firearm, K.S.A. 21-4204(1)(b).

The facts giving rise to Martin's convictions are as follows. In June of 1985, Brenda Adams filed for divorce from her husband, Eddie Adams. Eddie moved out of the couple's residence in Kansas City, Missouri, and into his mother's home. Shortly thereafter, Brenda began seeing the appellant, Frederick Martin. Brenda and Fred had met at the Western Missouri Mental Health Center where Brenda was employed as a pharmacist and Fred as a maintenance worker.

In the early morning hours of October 11, 1985, Eddie Adams walked into Brenda's home after seeing Fred's car parked outside. Eddie was enraged. He began yelling at Brenda and Fred, saying, among other things, that if he had a gun, he'd kill them both. Fred, who was sitting on the bed, told Brenda to dress her 18-month-old daughter, Alicia, and leave with him. At that point, Eddie began striking Brenda, cutting her head. Brenda dripped blood from her head and nose in the bedroom, bathroom, and a hallway.

Sometime during this altercation, Fred left the house but telephoned a short time later and spoke with Eddie. About ten minutes later, there was a knock at the door. Brenda looked out the window and saw a car belonging to James (Monk) Moore parked on the street in front of the house, and Fred's car parked in the driveway. Brenda knew Monk to be a friend of Fred's. She then observed the door being kicked in by Fred and Monk as they entered the house.

Monk was holding a handgun, which he held to Eddie's head, while Fred pushed Eddie toward the sofa. Monk reached into the closet and pulled out a cord from an unused telephone, and Fred used the cord to tie Eddie's hands behind his back. Fred then threw Eddie on the floor, stuffed a T-shirt in his mouth, and tied it around the back of his head. Brenda pled with Fred to stop. Fred responded, "If you plead for his life, then you can go with him." Brenda understood this statement to mean Fred and Monk would do the same thing to her they were doing to Eddie. She was afraid they would kill her.

Fred next took Brenda into the bedroom and explained to her that he was not going to hurt Eddie, but instead, intended only to scare him so he would stop beating Brenda. Fred then went back into the living room, leaving Brenda in the bedroom until she heard the front door close a few minutes later. Brenda ascertained the three men were gone.

About 30 minutes later, Fred and Monk returned to Brenda's house. They began replacing the door facing which they had kicked off earlier. Brenda asked Fred what had happened to Eddie. He told her he was going to take Eddie's car to him and if Brenda was worried about Eddie, she should call Eddie's mother's house where Eddie would be in 30 to 35 minutes. Fred then left in Eddie's car with Monk following.

Fred returned in 40 minutes. He then took Brenda to the hospital for treatment for the head wound she had suffered.

No one saw Eddie Adams alive after October 11, 1985. His body was found October 30, 1985, in a vacant, weed-covered lot near Third and New Jersey in Kansas City, Kansas. An investigation revealed the victim's neck, hands, and feet had been tied with a telephone cord and a gag made of a knit material was found in the victim's mouth. An autopsy revealed the victim had been shot in the chest and in the back of the neck. The lack of external bleeding indicated the victim had not been moved after the shooting.

Brenda Adams was first interviewed by Kansas City police on November 1, 1985. On that date, Brenda gave a statement saying Eddie had come to her house on the evening of October 11, 1985, argued with her about the divorce and child support, beat her, and then left. She further stated that after Eddie left she called Fred and told him she was scared and needed to be taken to the hospital. Fred took her to the hospital and afterwards she went to Fred's apartment for the remainder of the evening.

In early November, the police received an anonymous tip through the TIPS hotline. The caller alleged the death of Edward Adams could have occurred at the Kansas City, Missouri, residence of Brenda Adams. Police officers proceeded to Brenda's home and received her consent to search the residence. The search included the use of a substance called "luminol" to detect the presence of blood in the house. Blood was found in the bedroom, hallway, and bathroom of the home. However, no blood matching the blood type of Eddie Adams was found.

While the police were searching her home, Brenda was allowed to go for a cup of hot chocolate with her neighbor, Rosie Patrick. When Brenda returned she gave the police a new statement, implicating Fred Martin in the murder of Eddie Adams. In her new statement, Brenda told the police essentially the facts as stated here. She later repeated the same statement of facts at trial. Rosie Patrick also gave the police a statement, in which she said that her friend, James "Monk" Moore, told her he and "Black Jesus" (Frederick Martin) had "already done the thing on him" (Eddie Adams).

Based on these statements, the matching condition of the victim when found, and the TIPS hotline information, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Frederick Martin and James Moore. Frederick Martin was initially charged with one count of first-degree murder. The charges were later amended to include aggravated kidnapping and unlawful possession of a firearm.

At trial, Frederick Martin testified on his own behalf. He stated that he did not recall where he was on the evening of October 11, 1985. He further testified he was not involved in the incident described by Brenda Adams.

The jury found Martin guilty of all three of the charges against him. He was sentenced to consecutive life terms for the offenses of first-degree murder and aggravated kidnapping. He further received a sentence of three to ten years for unlawful possession of a firearm, with this sentence to run concurrently with the life sentence imposed for aggravated kidnapping.

Codefendant James "Monk" Moore was acquitted following a jury trial in December of 1986.

Frederick Martin perfected this appeal.

The first issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in allowing the appellant to act as co-counsel.

In a pretrial hearing held on May 30, 1986, the court considered the appellant's motion to act as co-counsel. During the hearing, the following conversation took place between the court, the appellant, and his court-appointed counsel, Mr. Way:

"MR. WAY: Okay. Your Honor, I have two others here; one's the motion for a co-counsel, signed by Mr. Martin, and he may be able to articulate some of these in a different fashion than I can, however, he has set those out there and he's fairly articulate in his written presentation, and he's asking to be co-counsel.

"THE COURT: What do you want there, Fred; I don't know what you're after.

"THE DEFENDANT: Well, Your Honor--

"THE COURT: You've got a right to participate in the trial, but the way we run things in all trials is there can just be one attorney do the cross-examination or the direct and do the voir dire and do anything else.

"THE DEFENDANT: I understand that.

"THE COURT: You know, you can go pro se if you want to and do it all yourself, but I wouldn't advise you to do it.

....

"THE DEFENDANT: All I want to do is to be assured that I will be able to exercise my constitutional rights, that's all.

"THE COURT: All I'm saying, you can talk to Jan [Mr. Way] as much as you want and give him whatever questions you want to ask, but I'm not going to allow you both to examine witnesses or something.

....

"MR. GRIFFIN: The State would have no objections; I don't care if he questions the witnesses, but exactly what you're saying, only one does it, whether it's Jan or whether it's him, one can do it; I don't care if he participates in the questions.

"THE COURT: I don't care which one of you is.

"THE DEFENDANT: I have been denied this right previously and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Lynch
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • August 12, 2004
    ...issue defendant injects." Id. at 111 (quoting State v. Weaver, 912 S.W.2d 499, 510 (Mo.1995) (en banc)). See also State v. Martin, 241 Kan. 732, 740 P.2d 577, 582-83 (1987) (admission of declarant's out-of-court statement to police upheld as admissible "in light of [defendant] opening up th......
  • State v. Valladarez
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • May 8, 2009
    ...is silent on the issue and the State has the burden of establishing jurisdiction in a criminal prosecution, see State v. Martin, 241 Kan. 732, 742-43, 740 P.2d 577 (1987), Valladarez argues we must resolve this issue in his favor. However, the burden of establishing jurisdiction has never b......
  • State v. Lawson
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • April 5, 2013
    ...more than a routine inquiry to determine if a waiver of the right to counsel was knowingly and intelligently made.” State v. Martin, 241 Kan. 732, 737, 740 P.2d 577 (1987) (citing to State v. Daniels, 2 Kan.App.2d 603, 607, 586 P.2d 50 [1978] ).Martin cited Daniels for the minimum standards......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1995
    ...By opening the door to otherwise inadmissible hearsay, a defendant waives the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. State v. Martin, 241 Kan. 732, 740 P.2d 577 (1987), presented a somewhat similar factual situation. A neighbor of the victim's wife gave a statement to police indicating tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Appellate Decisions
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 86-5, May 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...convictions. In direct appeal, Kansas Supreme Court rejected Martin's double jeopardy challenge to these two convictions. State v. Martin, 241 Kan. 732 (1987). In the instant case, Martin filed motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing district judge lacked jurisdiction to impose multiple......

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