The motion filed today puts Kylers case in true prospective and the District Attorney Marc Bennett should be investigated to determine just how many other innocent people are locked behind bars for 20 years (and thats the minimum) and never harmed or intended to harm another... Some details that are not present...is the fact that all co-denfedants committing the robbery are known gang members in WPDs data base that they dont want to provide because it is such sensitive information? To defense council? (Sound familiar? Brady-Gigleo?) The motion in limine will keep the jury from knowing any of that. (This too is being abused) This was not a drug deal gone bad This was a premeditated armed robbery by gang members... IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF KANSAS, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. )Case No. 13CR01052 )Division: 20 ) KYLER CARRIKER, ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF CO-DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT AS DEFENSE TO STATE’S CHARGE OF FELONY MURDER COMES NOW, the Defendant, Kyler Carriker, by and through his attorney, Sarah G. Swain, The Swain Law Office LLC, and pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Sections 5 and 10 of the Kansas Bill of Rights; and moves this Court to allow presentation of evidence and argument by the defense related to the armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary engaged in by Dennis Haynes, Lorenzo Spires, John Carter, and Clifton Parks in the current case. More specifically, the defense must be allowed to present to the jury evidence and argument that the actions of these individuals eliminated the causal relationship between the underlying felony with which Mr. Carriker is charged, and the ultimate death of Ronald Betts. Under Kansas law such argument is relevant and in within the province of a jury. In support of this Motion, Mr. Carriker states the following: STATEMENT OF FACTS The Defendant, Mr. Carriker, is charged with felony/first degree murder and attempted distribution of a hallucinogenic. These are very serious charges. If convicted he faces a life sentence. The charges in question relate to an incident that occurred in the evening hours of April 18, 2013. During this incident, Ronald Betts was shot and killed. Additionally, Mr. Carriker was wounded. As a result of this incident, the State has charged Mr. Carriker with felony murder. The State’s information alleges more specifically that Mr. Carriker unlawfully killed Ronald Betts while engaging in the inherently dangerous felony of attempted distribution of a hallucinogenic. The State has sought to establish that Mr. Carriker facilitated a marijuana transaction that led to the resulted in the death of Ronald Betts. In response to this allegation, the defense has cited repeatedly to the actions of the four co-defendants in this case: Dennis Haynes, Lorenzo Spires, John Carter, and Clifton Parks. Multiple sources of evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the statements of the these individuals themselves, has established that on the night of April 18, 2013 co-defendants Dennis Haynes, Lorenzo Spires, John Carter, and Clifton Parks conspired to commit various crimes, including murder and aggravated robbery, against Mr. Carriker and other individuals all located at 446 N. Emporia St. in Wichita, Kansas. It has been the defense’s objective to cite to this conspiracy and the eventual robbery and shooting as an intervening act, sufficient to separate Mr. Carriker’s participation in the attempted distribution of marijuana from the eventual death of Ronald Betts. Such an argument is supported by Kansas case law pertaining to felony murder. However, at a pre-trial motions hearing held on November 24th and 25th, the State mischaracterized defense’s argument. At this hearing, the State incorrectly argued that defense counsel’s position amounted to proffering a defense of impossibility. In support of this, the State cited to State v. Jones, 271 Kan. 71, in arguing that impossibility is not a defense to an attempt crime. After making this argument, a discussion was had in which the Court ordered both sides to brief the issue after which the Court would make a ruling. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES Defense counsel should be permitted to pursue the course of defense outlined above by presenting evidence related to the actions of Dennis Haynes, Lorenzo Spires, John Carter, and Clifton Parks in the current case. More specifically, defense counsel must be allowed to proffer evidence that these individuals engaged in a conspiracy to commit multiple crimes against Mr. Carriker and Mr. Betts, and did engage in the crime of aggravated robbery which was the direct cause of Mr. Betts death. In conjunction with this presentation of evidence, defense requests the ability to present argument to the finder of fact that this aggravated robbery constituted an intervening event that severed the underlying felony Mr. Carriker is charged with from the ultimate death of Ronald Betts. Defense counsel wishes to present evidence and argument that the aggravated robbery eliminated the causal relationship between the attempted distribution of marijuana and the death of Ronald Betts. Such an issue has continually been held to be within the scope of consideration for a jury in Kansas. For multiple reasons, failure to allow Mr. Carriker to present such evidence and argument would severely limit his constitutionally mandated right to present a defense and drastically undermine his right to a fair trial. A.The role of a causal relationship in felony murder cases It is undisputed that in order for a criminal defendant in Kansas to be found guilty of felony murder in Kansas there must be a direct causal connection between the underlying felony and the homicide. Furthermore, the existence of a causal relationship is something for the jury to consider in its decision-making. The requirement of a direct causal connection was discussed by the Supreme Court in State v. Lamae: It is true that there must be a direct causal connection between the commission of the felony and the homicide to invoke the felony-murder rule. [Citation omitted.] However, the general rules of proximate cause used in civil actions do not apply. Rather, a defendant will be found not responsible for the death which occurs during the commission of a felony only if an extraordinary intervening event supersedes the defendants act and becomes the sole legal cause of death. See Bonhart v. U.S., 691 A.2d 160, 162-63 (D.C. 1997) (act of person going back into burning house to rescue dog not sufficient to break chain of causation for felony murder based on arson); State v. Leopold, 110 Conn. 55, 62, 147 A. 118 (1929) (act of boys in attempting to rescue personal possessions from house not sufficient to break chain of causation for felony murder based on arson). State v. Lamae, 268 Kan. 544, 555 (2000) This case firmly establishes that in order for a criminal defendant to be convicted of felony murder it must be not only be established that an inherently dangerous felony and a death occurred, but also that a causal connection existed between the two. A criminal defendant can thus present evidence to combat the State’s claim of a causal connection by establishing the existence of an “extraordinary intervening event” that becomes the sole legal cause of death. In the current case, undisputed evidence exists that Haynes, Spires, and Carter arrived at the house on Emporia with the intentions of committing an armed robbery against Mr. Carriker and others in the residence. Further evidence establishes that this conspiracy was established during a chance encounter between these individuals and Mr. Carriker at a railroad-crossing in North Wichita. It is undisputed that Mr. Carriker had no involvement in this conspiracy whatsoever. In fact, there is no evidence that Mr. Carriker had ever met or interacted with any of these individuals prior to the meeting at the railroad crossing. The only evidence produced thus far is that after meeting and communicating with Mr. Carriker briefly, the three individuals arrived at the house on Emporia Street with the intention of committing an aggravated robbery. After being in the house a short amount of time, Dennis Haynes opened fire without provocation, killing Ronald Betts and wounding Mr. Carriker. This act by Haynes, done without provocation and without warning, constitutes an “extraordinary intervening event” that became the sole legal cause of Ronald Betts’ death. Thus evidence pertaining to this actions and the underlying conspiracy is relevant and legally admissible, as is argument that this action was an intervening cause. Kansas law has repeatedly held that the issue of a causal connection is an issue reserved for the finder of fact in a criminal case. In State v. Hearron, 228 Kan. 693, the Supreme Court of Kansas discussed in depth causal connection in felony murder cases and its role in the jury’s decision-making process: “Time, distance, and the causal relationship between the underlying felony and the killing are factors to be considered in determining whether the killing is a part of the felony and, therefore, subject to the felony-murder rule. Whether the underlying felony had been abandoned or completed prior to the killing so as to remove it from the ambit of the felony-murder rule is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury to decide. When we apply the factors of time, distance, and causal relationship to the facts of this case, we have no hesitancy in holding that it was a factual issue for the jury to determine whether the killing of Delmer Terry occurred during the commission of the attempted burglary.” State v. Hearron, 228 Kan. 693, 696 (Kan. 1980) In Hearron, the issue was whether the defendant’s actions in fleeing from the scene of an attempted felony were part of the res gestae of the underlying felony. In upholding the trial court’s verdict, the Supreme Court emphasized that the idea of causality in relation to the underlying felony and the killing was a “factual issue for the jury to determine.” The outcome in the current case should be no different than Hearron. Mr. Carriker is not asking that the Court make a legal finding that the State’s case be dismissed for lack of probable cause that a crime was committed. Instead, the defense simply seeks to admit relevant and probative evidence at trial, and present argument to the jury that attacks the causal relationship between the charged underlying felony in this case and the death of Ronald Betts. Such an argument is entirely within the realm of consideration for a finder-of-fact and should not be summarily disallowed based solely on the State’s inaccurate mischaracterization of the defense’s position. Such a wholesale foreclosure of a valid defense strategy would deny Mr. Carriker his constitutionally guaranteed right to defend himself against the State’s charges. B.Judge Kaufman’s previous ruling pertaining to causation and felony murder. As previously mentioned, a motions hearing was held in this case on November 24-25 2014. At this hearing, in addition to mischaracterizing defense’s strategy pertaining to the causation issue, the State also cited to Mr. Carriker’s preliminary hearing held on March 7, 2014. More specifically, the State cited to Judge Kaufman’s ruling in response to defense counsel’s position that probable cause did not exist to bind Mr. Carriker over for trial. At the preliminary hearing defense counsel in making its arguments cited to State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603, a case which contains much of the the previously cited case law pertaining to felony murder and causation. In ruling that probable cause existed to bind Mr. Carriker over, Judge Kaufman noted explicitly that the element of causation, and whether or not it existed or didn’t exist, was not for him to decide but rather an issue for the finder of fact: “This is a probable cause of determination. And in the light most favorable to the state, Berry an Phillips allow a district court to make the appropriate finding bind over Mr. Carriker on felony murder. I have no comment on whether the evidence is sufficient at jury trial on the causation argument that Ms. Swain raised before me, because thats not my role here.” See Transcript of Preliminary Hearing, Part II, pg. 56 line 22-25, p. 57 line 1-5 Judge Kaufman went on to further state: “Where direct causal connection is present, where it is present, that is determined by examining time, distance, and causal relationship between the felony and the killing. Hence, that is a factual analysis by the finder of fact. Go back to a probable cause standard. In the light most favorable to the state. It would simply be err for this court to find, as a matter of law, that the causation element is not found. Thats the explanation I would give for the basis of my ruling in binding over Mr. Carriker on Counts O ne and Two as substantively charged.” See Transcript of Preliminary Hearing, Part II, pg. 58, lines 8-19. It should also be noted that as part of this ruling, the Judge did cite to State v. Jones in ruling that a defense of impossibility was not legally applicable to the crime of attempt. However, this was simply one part of the Judge’s two-part ruling. At no point did the Judge establish that an argument pertaining to causation would not be legally appropriate or that such a ruling could even be made without first allowing the argument to be presented to the jury. Therefore, in reliance on Judge Kaufman’s ruling on March 7, defense counsel has specifically crafted a defense strategy geared towards attacking the causation element that the State is required by law to prove. To disallow Mr. Carriker from offering this evidence and argument at trial would prejudice him not only in the sense that a valid line of defense has been choked off, but also in the sense that defense counsel would be forced to change course and develop a new strategy very late in the game. Such a critical denial at this point in the process would severely hinder Mr. Carriker’s ability to receive a fair trial. In the current case what the State is asking of the Court is for a ruling to be made that precludes Mr. Carriker from presenting a legally relevant and acceptable form of argument at trial under the guise that such argument would amount to a request for jury nullification. This argument is without merit and completely dismisses the true role of a jury in a criminal case: to consider the law as given and apply it to the facts as presented at trial. The law of felony murder in Kansas is quite clear. In order for a defendant to be convicted of felony murder, there must be a causal relationship established between the underlying felony and the death. Therefore, a jury rightfully instructed on this law should also be provided with arguments by defense counsel that cut against this causation element. A jury equipped with such evidence if available, would be more informed and more apt to accurately apply the law, thus ensuring that nullification is avoided and Mr. Carriker’s constitutional rights are protected. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Mr. Carriker respectfully asks this Court to allow defense presentation of evidence and argument pertaining to the previously mentioned actions of Dennis Haynes, Lorenzo Spires, John Carter, and Clifton Parks, to ensure that Mr. Carriker is able to present a complete defense at trial. Respectfully submitted, ___________________ Sarah G. Swain, #20417 The Swain Law Office 2311 Wakarusa Drive, Suite J Lawrence, KS 66047 (785) 842-2787 Attorney for Mr. Carriker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was faxed to the Sedgwick County District Attorneys Office this 29th day of December, 2014. ______________________________________ Sarah G. Swain, #20417 NOTICE OF HEARING Please take notice and be advised that the foregoing motion will be heard at 3:00 p.m. on the 9th day of January, 2014 at the Sedgwick County Courthouse. _____________________________________ Sarah G. Swain, #20417
Posted on: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:42:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015