State v. Trotter
| Decision Date | 10 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 120,158 |
| Citation | 510 P.3d 1204 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Manuel L. TROTTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Jennifer C. Roth, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before Green, P.J., Atcheson and Hurst, JJ.
Manuel L. Trotter appeals from his convictions related to the shooting death of his friend and roommate Joseph Seabolt. He contends that the trial court erred because it denied his motion for self-defense immunity and proceeded to trial. We disagree and affirm. He further argues that the State did not present enough evidence for the jury to find him guilty of criminal discharge of a weapon. We disagree and affirm. He also argues that the State did not present enough evidence for the jury to find him guilty of aggravated battery. We disagree and affirm. Also, he argues that the State committed prosecutorial error, jury instruction error, and cumulative error involving his conviction of involuntary manslaughter. We agree. Because cumulative errors deprived Trotter of his right to a fair trial, we reverse his conviction for involuntary manslaughter, vacate his sentence for involuntary manslaughter, and remand for a new trial on that conviction.
Finally, he argues that the statute mandating criminal restitution is unconstitutional. We decline to address this issue based on our having reversed his conviction of involuntary manslaughter. So we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.
On May 31, 2017, Joseph Seabolt and his brother David were at a birthday party for a friend at the duplex where Joe lived. The duplex consisted of an upstairs and a downstairs unit. Joe fought with his brother that day. Joe also fought with his roommate, Trotter. Trotter eventually shot Joe. Before trial, Trotter claimed that he shot Joe to defend himself and his girlfriend, Sydnie Klos.
Trotter and Klos lived together in the downstairs unit of the duplex. Trotter and Klos hung a tapestry to block off the living room and lived in it as though it were a bedroom. Joe also lived in the downstairs unit with Trotter and Klos, but he had his own bedroom. Both Trotter and Joe normally carried handguns.
David arrived at the party at around 5 p.m. The birthday party was in the upstairs unit of the duplex. At the party, alcohol, marijuana, and MDMA were consumed. According to party attendee Tyler Frasher, Joe and David had an argument about how to socialize a dog and a cat in the upstairs unit. Hours into the party, David saw Joe in a "somewhat heated" conversation with Frasher outside the duplex. David walked over to see why his brother was so angry. Joe turned his attention to David, shoving his brother to the ground before hitting him a few times. Joe's attack ended when other people pulled Joe off his brother. Frasher testified that this fight was an extension of the argument over how to get the dog and the cat to warm up to each other.
After this altercation, Frasher felt "very uncomfortable" and went home. David went to the downstairs unit where people were playing video games. Joe, however, began arguing with Trotter. David heard a gunshot from outside. David went outside to see Joe and Trotter arguing and "they maybe shoved one another a couple of times, but it didn't get too violent at that point." Trotter said that he was going to bed and walked downstairs, while David and Joe remained outside.
David spent 10 to 15 minutes trying to convince his brother to leave with him, but instead Joe went downstairs to confront Trotter. David lingered outside for a moment before following. David saw Joe and Trotter in a fist fight in the basement. Trotter eventually got Joe into a chokehold where Joe's face turned blue, and it looked like Joe was losing consciousness. Klos had been sleeping through the party because she did not feel well. She woke up to see her boyfriend fighting with Joe. Trotter released Joe when Klos and David begged him to.
After Trotter released Joe from the chokehold, he went to his room and returned with a rifle. While Joe was on the ground, Trotter wielded the rifle like a club, striking Joe in the face multiple times with the barrel of the rifle. Then Trotter went back into his room. This confrontation was the basis for the State charging Trotter with aggravated battery, in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5413(b)(1)(B).
Joe went to the tapestry that served as a door to Trotter's room and told Trotter to come out. David testified that Joe jabbed the tapestry with his fingers as he talked to Trotter. Klos was in the room with Trotter and testified that Joe was waving a gun through the tapestry while screaming at Trotter. Trotter pushed aside the tapestry, took a couple steps out of his room, pointed the rifle at Joe's abdomen, and fired.
Joe dropped to the ground and told Trotter to "put one in his head." Trotter went into his room and began packing, telling Klos that they needed to go. Trotter and Klos loaded their TV, electronics, and some guns into their car and drove to Klos' parents' home in Peck, Kansas. David and another friend took Joe to the hospital, despite Joe's protests. Klos testified that Joe struggled against being taken to the hospital, asking to be left to die because he did not want to go back to jail. Joe had an Indiana warrant for intimidation of a minor with a deadly weapon.
Joe continued to be combative in the car and at the hospital, fighting with security and the nurses. Joe died at the hospital several hours later. The autopsy showed the cause of death was a gunshot wound to his torso. Joe's blood alcohol content was 0.245, with THC and a cocaine metabolite also in his system.
Police arrested Trotter in Peck the next day. Police found the rifle and two other guns in his car, including the 9 mm pistol that Joe normally carried. The State charged Trotter with involuntary manslaughter, in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5405(a)(1).
During their investigation, police found bullet strikes on the door to the basement unit and the stairwell just outside that door. Trotter told police that he was locked out of his unit at one point during the party, so he tried to shoot his way through the lock even though he knew people were inside. Also, Trotter testified at trial that he tried to shoot his way through the lock, knowing that people were inside the unit. For this action, the State charged Trotter with criminal discharge of a firearm, in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6308(a)(1)(A).
Trotter moved to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter charge, arguing that he was immune from prosecution because he acted in defense of himself and Klos. After a hearing, the trial court denied Trotter's motion to dismiss. A jury convicted Trotter of all charges. The trial court sentenced Trotter to 64 months in prison.
Trotter timely appeals.
Did the trial court err in finding that Trotter was not immune from prosecution?
Trotter argues that the trial court erred in finding that he was not immune from prosecution. He contends that the trial court did not properly apply the legal test, did not resolve conflicts in the evidence, and misapplied statutory presumptions. As a remedy, Trotter asks us to remand for further findings on self-defense immunity. The State responds that the trial court sufficiently articulated its ruling, making remand unnecessary.
In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss based on immunity under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5231, appellate courts apply a bifurcated standard of review of the trial court's probable cause determination. Accordingly, when the lower court's factual findings arise out of disputed evidence, the appellate court will determine if the findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. The appellate court will not reweigh the evidence. The ultimate legal conclusion of whether the facts so found arise to the level of probable cause is a legal conclusion reviewed de novo. State v. Hardy , 305 Kan. 1001, 1012, 390 P.3d 30 (2017).
When there are no disputed material facts on a motion under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5231, the appellate court is presented with a pure question of law over which it exercises unlimited review. 305 Kan. at 1012.
When evaluating a claim of self-defense immunity under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5231, the trial court must exercise its gatekeeping function and consider the totality of the circumstances, weigh the evidence without deferring to the State, and determine whether the State has established probable cause that the defendant's use of force was not statutorily justified. 305 Kan. at 1011.
To overcome a defendant's immunity claim under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5231, the State must establish probable cause that an ordinarily prudent and cautious person could reasonably believe the defendant's use of force was not justified under either or both of two scenarios: (1) The defendant did not honestly believe the use of force was necessary under the circumstances or (2) a reasonable person would not believe the use of force was necessary under the circumstances. State v. Thomas , 311 Kan. 403, 156, 462 P.3d 149 (2020).
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5222 outlines when the use of force is justified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial