See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 32829, 105 S.Ct. 769 (10th Cir.) The State's evidence demonstrated Robinson killed both victims to steal their Social Security benefit payments. Robinson claims Judge Anderson erred in denying his challenge to Jurors 33, 39, 63, and 271 because they would vote automatically for death upon conviction. We determined that the statutory aggravator required a direct relationship between the great risk of death thrust upon the second victim and the homicide of the first victim. 2. Second, the trash container was located 10 to 12 feet beyond the exterior fence that encircled the perimeter of the mobile home. Here, Juror 147 made his comments after the jury had taken a vote, reaching unanimous agreement as to sentence. The jury was free to consider this evidence offered in support of the capital murder counts, Counts II and III, as probative of Robinson's specific intent to inflict bodily injury under Count I, aggravated kidnapping. Robinson also argues the State failed to prove he possessed the specific intent to hold Trouten for the purpose of inflicting bodily injury upon her. Wesley Medical Center v. McCain, 226 Kan. 263, 266, 597 P.2d 1088 (1979). However, the Sodders majority did not specifically analyze or address the remedies available under K.S.A. Did Judge Anderson err in allowing the medical examiner's testimony regarding defensive wounds? From September 18 to October 1, 2002, the parties examined 43 panels made up of 259 veniremembers. In the affidavit, Nerad claimed that her preliminary investigation suggested Robinson had endured chronic and life-threatening violence, abandonment, and neglect at the hands of his caretakers. 213439(a)(6), under which the two capital counts were brought, provides that capital murder is the intentional and premeditated killing of more than one person as a part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct.. The body of the message said Trouten and her dogs had left on the adventure of a lifetime. Remington responded a few minutes later, sharing that she had ended the relationship with her former BDS & M master. Remington received a reply from Trouten's Hotmail account, referring Remington to a new master at eruditemaster@email.com. Remington contacted this new master and began communicating with a man she came to know as Jim Turner. If one expands the analysis beyond cases establishing actual innocence, the instances in which the law was not followed in capital cases is breathtaking. Dillehay explained that enhanced voir dire would require participation of attorneys, lots of questions, and small groups consisting of no more than four to six people, facilitating an environment where prospective jurors would be forthcoming. In addition, Juror 147's comments were very brief in nature, did not lead to ongoing discussions among jurors, and were made only after the jury had taken a vote in which all were in unanimous agreement as to Robinson's sentence. In reviewing presumed prejudice claims, we apply a mixed standard of review, examining the trial court's findings of fact for substantial competent evidence and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from the factswhether to presume prejudicede novo. Longoria, 301 Kan. at 506. But life in prison without possibility of parole is no less incapacitating. He was also very close to his grandchildren, according to an appeal filed in his case. 214624(b). Ronald Wood testified that he never signed the Decree. Like K.S.A. Strike of Veniremember Opposed to Death Penalty. According to the court records, Robinsons youngest daughter, Christy, had a daughter and younger son. Unbeknownst to Trouten's family, Robinson had made arrangements in late March 2000 for Jean Glines to mail several letters for him from California. 2658, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993), the Supreme Court made clear: 'Lockett and its progeny stand only for the proposition that a State may not cut off in an absolute manner the presentation of mitigating evidence, either by statute or judicial instruction, or by limiting the inquiries to which it is relevant so severely that the evidence could never be a part of the sentencing decision at all.' Robinson focuses on language in Instructions Nos. [Norman]: For some reason she had moved out of this house and my other sister, Michelle, and I had to clean it up and we found correspondence to where she was into the kinky sex. State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 509, 525, 324 P.3d 1078 (2014). See State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 718, 101 P.3d 1218 (2004) (prior murder probative of intent and premeditation, given similarity of incidents), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234, 328 P.3d 1081 (2014); State v. Henson, 221 Kan. 635, 645, 562 P.2d 51 (1977) (evidence of prior knifing probative of identity and premeditation, given similarity of offenses). During the State's rebuttal portion of the penalty phase closing, prosecutor Morrison argued: When the defendant cried, cried one time during this trial, he didn't cry when there was testimony about Lisa Stasi. Around the time Stasi began dating Carl, Robinson was looking for a private adoption opportunity for his younger brother, Donald Robinson, and Donald's wife, Helen, who lived in the Chicago area. United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 879 (4th Cir.1996) (no error in refusing to allow detailed questioning during voir dire concerning specific mitigating factors), cert. Robinson was arrested that morning just before officers executed the search warrants. Robinson argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a number of e-mail exchanges between Robinson and the victims or other witnesses, which tended to support the State's theory that he lured his victims and engaged in acts of fraud and deceit to conceal their murders as part of the common scheme or course of conduct charged in the capital counts. ] State v. Scott, 285 Kan. 366, 372, 171 P.3d 639 (2007). 3032 (exclusion may be an available remedy for search that violates state law where remedy is provided by statute or statute confers a substantial right, especially one related to Fourth Amendment protections). In light of the totality of the circumstances, we are confident that the prosecutor's remarks had no effect on the sentencing decision. Robinson's common scheme and course of conduct also included the financial exploitation of Beverly Bonner and, later, the use of deceit to conceal her murder. 60455, which requires exclusion only where the evidence concerning a prior act constitutes a crime or civil wrong. Robinson was able to do just that notwithstanding Judge Anderson's rulings. MICHAEL J. MALONE, Senior Judge, assigned.1. This application is reviewed either for abuse of discretion or de novo, depending on the rule or principle being applied. See Longoria, 301 Kan. at 50708 (factor weighed against venue change where case recognition high but memory of details had faded); Carr, 300 Kan. at 68 (factor inconclusive where substantial time elapsed but evidence of juror recollection remained high at voir dire). Meanwhile Robinson is beating his wife Nancy and starving his dog and 2 horses. Factual and Procedural BackgroundGuilt Phase. Despite the absence of error under these facts, we caution that similar instructions should conform with the statutory language, for under a different set of facts, the instruction may be deemed erroneous under the applicable standard of review. To facilitate such luring, Robinson paid for Trouten to stay at the Guesthouse Suites in Lenexa; paid for a moving truck to transport Trouten's belongings from Michigan to Johnson County; and, after her arrival, stored Trouten's belongings in his Olathe storage unit and boarded her two dogs at an Olathe animal clinic. 213439(a)(6), that the murders of Trouten and Lewicka were each part of a common scheme or course of conduct that also included the intentional, premeditated murders of Beverly J. Bonner, Sheila Faith, Debbie Faith, and Lisa Stasi. Investigators believe Robinson targeted Lisa Stasi to take the baby for his brother, according to court filings. Both the district judge and the parties knew the identity of each prospective juror. Judge Anderson's rulings are supported by substantial competent evidence, and we find no error in the admission of these exhibits. The law specifies when the death penalty is appropriate. The First Circuit concluded that [w]e cannot assume, as the district court apparently did, that individual voir dire of the jurors and a curative instruction would not have eradicated the risk of prejudice in this case. 519 F.3d at 88; see Cross v. At trial, the State intended to establish that Robinson stored the barrels containing the bodies of Sheila Faith, Debbie Faith, and Beverly Bonner in unit F10 but moved them to unit E2 and wrapped them in plastic after they began to leak. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. During the execution of the warrant to search Robinson's Linn County property, law enforcement seized nine hammers, two picks, and a chisel from various locations on the property. 223216(1) with Tex.Crim. If error is found, we next conduct a reversibility inquiry, where. Cunningham admitted that Robinson had a history of deception both inside and outside of the prison setting, and he predicted this behavior would continue. Robinson does not dispute that applicants satisfied the necessity requirement in discussing several traditional investigative techniques. Also, prosecutor Morrison thought he recognized Juror 184 as a participant of a weekend marriage seminar the prosecutor and his wife taught more than a decade prior. Delo corroborated this testimony, confirming that as an inmate ages, the risk of violence decreases. At the start of the proceedings the following day, September 17, Juror 147 appeared in response to his summons. Judge Anderson confirmed that the defense was making a tactical decision in anticipation of a conviction and subsequent penalty phase proceeding. Trouten said the job would pay $60,000 annually and require extensive travel to places such as Switzerland and Belgium. State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1026, 221 P.3d 525 (2009). 60460(a). Don and Helen werent charged because it was believed they were oblivious to John Edward Robinsons true scheme. State v. Wells, 297 Kan. 741, 754, 305 P.3d 568 (2013). Father of Private. The defense moved for a mistrial on the penalty phase proceeding only. Legal Framework and Standard of Review. The majority jumps the rails at the start of its journey by describing the capital murder charges as follows: The State charged Robinson with two counts of capital murder, one count for the intentional, premeditated murder of Suzette Marie Trouten (Count II) and the other for the intentional, premeditated murder of Izabela Lewicka (Count III). Slip op. Consistent with Judge Anderson's direction, defense counsel did not raise the subject during general voir dire of the second panel. 3. Thus the relevant inquiry is whether these challenged jurors expressed a willingness and ability to hold the State to its burden of proof. Based on her independent recollection, Remington testified that State's Exhibits 4 and 5 were printouts from her home computer of e-mails she received from and sent to Robinson when he was posing as Trouten. Robinson claims the prosecutors engaged in misconduct by withholding the factual basis of or theory regarding the common scheme or course of conduct until the rebuttal portion of closing argument. In response, the State argued that it intended to introduce testimony that those items were seized during the search and that experts found no blood, tissue, or other trace evidence on them, but that such items could be cleaned easily. Juror 184 also recognized the name Bill Batt, another officer on the State's witness list who did not testify at trial. We have recognized that [a statute] that requires or forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application is violative of due process. Hackett, 275 Kan. at 853 (citing State v. Dunn, 233 Kan. 411, 418, 662 P.2d 1286 [1983] ); see Connally v. Gen. Constr. See State v. Longoria, 301 Kan. 489, 525, 343 P.2d 1128 (2015). When Robinson boarded Trouten's two dogs at a veterinary clinic, he said the dogs belonged to his employee. Of course, in Lisa Stasi's case a body not found. Nancy Robinson met her future husband, John Robinson, in 1963 in Oak Hill, Illinois. The State objected, arguing defense counsel was improperly staking out jurors (staking jurors is the practice of asking case-specific questions designed to commit prospective jurors to a particular vote or to disclose how they would vote when faced with certain case-specific facts). Both murders were committed subsequent to the enactment of the capital murder statute. Having confirmed that the jury's verdict on Count I is supported by sufficient evidence of a taking by deception, we need not consider the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the State's alternative argument. Can district judges issue extraterritorial search warrants? The aggravated interference with parental custody statute under which Robinson was charged provided: (a) Aggravated interference with parental custody is: (1) Hiring someone to commit the crime of interference with parental custody, as defined by K.S.A. 1. denied 131 S.Ct. During cross-examination, Robinson's counsel suggested the final message in Exhibit 5 should have included a Re: Re: in the subject lineapparently forgetting that the final message was sent by Robinson, not Remington. at 2757 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Lewicka often held herself out as Robinson's wife. 383, 388 (6th Cir.2013) (unpublished opinion) (whether court has granted previous continuances is an appropriate factor in analyzing subsequent motions). After the ruling, the defense continued its voir dire of the panel. Both Trouten and Lewicka were killed after the enactment of the capital murder statute. After identifying this injury, prosecutor Morrison asked, Would that be consistent with a defensive wound? Defense counsel objected, arguing the question called for speculation. The comment was not immune to such instruction. Glines agreed to mail the letters if Robinson stopped calling her. denied 519 U.S. 845 (1996); Plantz v. State, 1994 OK CR 33, 876 P.2d 268, 279 (Okla.Crim.App.1994) (trial court properly limited the defense's voir dire on what jurors would consider as mitigation); State v. Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 10304, 501 S.E.2d 122 (1998) (Morgan does not require voir dire on specific mitigating circumstances). She was a scared, abused, 19-year-old girl with a newborn, desperate to keep her child [and] be a mother. Applicants warned that further use of interviews and inquisitional subpoenas might alert Robinson to the investigation. Thereafter, much of the delay Stettler experienced was the result of his decisions on time management. During general voir dire, neither Robinson nor the State challenged him. The Virginia Court of Appeals found the portion of the driveway located next to landscaping adjacent to the home, where police observed evidence of the crime, was located within the curtilage of defendant's residence, not the entire driveway. 222401a. The trial court granted the State's motion at an August 2002 hearing. Young opined that any number of these blows could have been fatal. John Edward Robinson Sr. was an American serial killer who lured victims using Internet chatrooms with the name "Slavemaster." Authorities believe he murdered at least seven young women, some. 272 Kan. at 1018. Robinson's challenge to State's Exhibit 19EE is plainly without merit. In some cases, according to court records, Robinson and his victims would enter into slave contracts before the murders. Taylor and Robinson, posing as Tom, continued to communicate and discuss BDS & M topics via e-mail. In Sodders, 255 Kan. at 84, despite the absence of any federal or state constitutional violation, the court affirmed the suppression of evidence where Overland Park police officers exceeded their territorial jurisdiction by executing a search warrant within the municipal boundaries of Lenexa. On appeal, Robinson acknowledges Juror 184 denied any bias in favor of law enforcement or the prosecutor but argues that all of these circumstances suggest the distinct possibility of such bias. (Emphasis added.) 20301a as a limitation on district judges' authority to issue extraterritorial warrants would render the legislature's 1976 adoption of House Bill 3186 and 1979 adoption of House Bill 2046 meaningless. 222401a. 1594 (2012). Robinson told Haymes he had placed Stasi at the Roadway Inn, but on January 10, she and Tiffany came to his business with a man named Bill and said they planned to start a new life together in Colorado. In his final remarks to the jury, the prosecutor returned to the purpose of the penalty phase proceedings under Kansas' statutory scheme. For the first time on appeal, Robinson argues the trial judge erred by allowing Cathy Norman to testify to the correspondence because her testimony was irrelevant, lacked proper foundation, was based on hearsay, and violated the best evidence rule. Cf. ", Robinson, crying again, testified how she also lost her job at the mobile home community shortly after her husband was arrested because of all the publicity about the case. Juror 14 admitted that evidence of six murders would weigh heavily in his sentencing decision and that it would be difficult to consider other sentences in light of such evidence. However, courts have adopted a common sense approach in which the reviewing court uses a standard of reasonableness to evaluate the government's good faith effort to use alternative investigative means or its failure to do so because of danger or low probability of success. To state the obvious, unfettered discretion is fertile ground for sprouting arbitrariness. All external sites will open in a new browser. "You said nothing about seeing your husband that morning," he thundered. Sodders is inapposite. granted in part 135 S.Ct. For example, before direct examination of Robinson's parole officer, Steve Haymes, the district judge confirmed with prosecutors that they would not elicit testimony regarding Haymes' job title, the nature of his relationship with Robinson, or his knowledge of Robinson's past convictions. Additional Factual and Procedural Background. at 2764 (Breyer, J., dissenting). There are several problems with Robinson's argument. Robinson argues the district judge erred by denying the challenge of Juror 336 because she believed a life sentence should not include the possibility of parole. 1594 (2012). 273 Kan. at 245 ( [w]e don't want people making meth in our communities' and we need to prevent people from making meth in our community ); State v. Ruff, 252 Kan. 625, 636, 847 P.2d 1258 (1993) (arguing jurors had a duty to send a message to the community that charged conduct will not be tolerated). 222503 places territorial limits on the execution of warrants issued by district magistrate judges. 222503 and 222505 are read together and considered against the history and developments subsequent to the 1970 codification, it is evident the legislature intended for district judges to retain their pre-code authority to issue search warrants executable statewide, while simultaneously revoking district magistrate judges' pre-codification authority to do so. Dahl admitted she was not interested in exploring whether respondents could set aside preconceived opinions and serve as impartial jurors. 5. Robinson explains that during questioning of one small group panel, a veniremember said she sensed that she was in the presence of evil around Robinson. Robinson argues the prosecution misrepresented its own evidence in the proffer, and the district judge's refusal to declare a mistrial left the jury with the distinct impression that Mr. Robinson had killed or wished to kill yet other women, stuffed them into yet other barrels, and kept them in yet another storage unitall on the basis of a false proffer from the State..