State v. Spilman
| Docket Number | 124,775 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 2023 |
| Parties | State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Brian A. Spilman Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
1
State of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Brian A. Spilman Jr., Appellant.
No. 124,775
Court of Appeals of Kansas
July 7, 2023
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. When reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, appellate courts generally apply a multi-step analysis. First, the court decides whether the issue was properly preserved in the trial court. Second, the court considers whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate. Third, if the court finds error, the court determines whether the error requires reversal. The standard applied to this last inquiry depends on preservation.
2. A litigant's failure to object to a jury instruction on the specific grounds raised on appeal does not preclude appellate review, but the litigant must show that the instruction is clearly erroneous.
3. An instruction on aiding and abetting is factually appropriate if, from the totality of the evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant aided and abetted another in the commission of a crime.
4. Under K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 21-5210, an aider or abettor must intend to assist the commission of a crime and must act with the same mental culpability as the principal. An aider or abettor may intend to assist the commission of a reckless act.
5. When a criminal defendant challenges the evidence supporting a conviction, an appellate court examines all the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party-the State-to determine whether a rational fact-finder could have found each required element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. An appellate court does not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or make credibility determinations.
6. Causation in a criminal case has two core elements: cause-in-fact and legal causation. Cause-in-fact requires proof that but for the defendant's conduct, the result would not have occurred. Legal causation limits a defendant's liability to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her conduct. There may be more than one proximate cause of a death. When the conduct of two or more persons contributes concurrently as proximate causes of a death, the conduct of each of said persons is a proximate cause of the death regardless of the extent to which each contributes to the death. A cause is concurrent if it was operative at the moment of death and acted with another cause to produce the death.
7. Prosecutorial error in closing arguments occurs when the prosecutor's actions or statements fall outside the wide latitude afforded prosecutors to conduct the State's case. If an appellate court concludes the prosecutor committed error, then it determines whether the error affected the substantial rights of the defendant. The court may deem the error harmless only if the State can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did
not affect the outcome of the trial. In other words, the State must show that no reasonable possibility exists that the error contributed to the verdict.
8. The law charges a prosecutor to restrict comments in argument to a reasoned discussion of the evidence presented at trial as it applies to the law, synthesizing facts and articulating reasonable inferences but not diverting the jury's attention from admissible evidence in deciding the case. Accordingly, a prosecutor may not mischaracterize the evidence during argument. He or she may not properly refer to information outside the admitted evidence. A prosecutor must not offer personal opinions about the significance of specific evidence or what witnesses are credible. A prosecutor must not misstate the law or invite the jurors to disregard the law. A prosecutor must not attempt to enflame the passions or prejudices of the jurors. When a prosecutor engages in these behaviors, he or she steps outside the wide latitude afforded prosecutors to argue a case.
9. To warrant reversal of a criminal conviction for cumulative trial error, the combined effect of the trial errors must convince the reviewing court that the defendant's trial was so prejudiced that the court may not declare the errors harmless. If any of the errors involved constitutional rights, the court must be willing to declare the cumulative error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
10. An appellate court generally does not review constitutional issues raised for the first time, though the courts have recognized three exceptions to this rule. Even when a litigant demonstrates the applicability of an exception, an appellate court is not bound to consider an unpreserved issue for the first time on appeal.
11. The amount of restitution and the manner in which restitution is paid are decisions left to the discretion of the trial court. An appellate court reviews that decision for abuse of that discretion. Absent demonstration of some error of fact or law, an appellate court will find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court's decision is shown to be arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.
Appeal from Doniphan District Court; JOHN L. WEINGART, judge.
Kai Tate Mann, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Charles D. Baskins, county attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.
Before MALONE, P.J., GREEN and ISHERWOOD, JJ.
GREEN, J.
Brian A. Spilman Jr. was convicted by a jury in Doniphan County District Court of involuntary manslaughter for participating in beating Jason Pantle, who later died from his injuries. Spilman challenges his conviction on several grounds: He contends (1) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on liability as an aider or abettor; (2) that his conviction is not supported by the evidence; and (3) that the prosecutor committed error in closing argument. He further contends that these errors, if not individually prejudicial, combined to deprive him of a fair trial. We disagree and affirm.
Because of the offense of conviction, the court also required Spilman to register as a violent offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). For the first time on appeal, Spilman challenges KORA as unconstitutional because it compels speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and treats similarly situated offenders differently in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because consideration of this issue would require the development of facts outside our appellate record, we refrain from considering this issue for the first time on appeal.
Finally, he challenges the trial court's restitution award because the court did not order restitution to be paid jointly and severally with Spilman's codefendants. Spilman has not demonstrated that the trial court's restitution award was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Thus, he has not established a basis for vacating the restitution award. We affirm.
FACTS
In September 2019, Gracie Seager planned a surprise birthday party for her mother, Sarah Amelia Seager (a/k/a Amy Seager or Amy Scherer), at her grandfather's shop in the town of Doniphan in Doniphan County. The shop had a garage door that was left open for the party. Outside the garage door, a concrete slab covered the drive for a few feet before running to gravel.
The party was held on Saturday, September 22, starting at about 8 p.m., but it extended into the early morning hours of Sunday, September 23. In preparation for the party, Gracie had issued invitations, but the number of people who attended the party exceeded the number of invitees as word of the party spread among acquaintances. Guests came and went throughout the evening. Estimates of the number of party guests ranged from 20 to 45.
Alcohol was served at the party, which may have contributed to the inconsistent reports about the altercations that led to the death of Pantle. No two witness accounts agree to the details of the altercations. Most witnesses, however, agree on the general story arc.
Though she could not specify the time, Gracie testified that she approached Pantle to ask him to leave because he was being boisterous and confrontational. Pantle responded rudely, asking her what she was going to do about it and calling her a "bitch." Pantle then shoved Gracie, and she lost her balance, tripping over a cooler on the floor behind her. Scott Vandeloo, who was standing near Gracie, told Pantle that he should not talk to Gracie that way and that he should respect the party. Pantle shoved Scott, and Scott pushed him back; Pantle fell to the ground. Gracie's mother essentially substantiated Gracie's testimony. Neither Gracie nor her mother mentioned any punching or wrestling between Scott and Pantle, and they did not mention any altercation between Pantle and Spilman at all. Nevertheless, Gracie and her mother left the party shortly after this altercation.
About 10 minutes before Gracie and her mother left-around 2 a.m.-Morgan Hull arrived at the party. Unlike most of the other witnesses in the case, Morgan was not related to anyone at the party, but she was friends with Shelby Seager and Gracie. After arriving at the party, Morgan found Shelby and joined her in conversation near the refrigerator, just inside the garage door of the shop. Although Morgan mentioned the departure of Gracie and her mother, she did not describe the confrontation between Gracie and Pantle that had prompted their departure, except to say that several people were arguing.
Just after Gracie and her mother left the party, Spilman engaged in a fight with Pantle. Morgan did not describe how the altercation began. Shelby, who was standing next to Morgan, testified that the altercation occurred when Spilman asked Pantle to leave the party, and he refused. David Underwood, who was dating Shelby but also unrelated to any of the combatants, stated that the fight began when Pantle ran at a group of people, and Spilman, in response, "went at" Pantle.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial