## Facts

- In June 2013, Montreal Rambo, a Crips member and close friend of Marquel D. Dean, was shot in Wichita, Kansas; his leg was amputated and he used a wheelchair thereafter.
- Word on the street attributed the shooting to James Gary (“Bird”), a Bloods member.
- About a month later, Gary’s girlfriend and her cousin attended a bar where many Crips were present, including Rambo and Dean.
- After the bar closed, they went to a large party (about 100 attendees) that typically attracted Gary and other Bloods.
- The cousin repeatedly called someone using the girlfriend’s phone; the person called was Dean.
- Around 3 a.m., Dean and another Crips member entered the party together; multiple witnesses later identified Dean as one of the shooters.
- Gunfire killed Gary and injured four bystanders.
- The State’s theory was that the shooting was a planned, retaliatory gang attack, and that gang context and Dean’s conduct supported identity, motive, and premeditation.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based on alleged juror misconduct.
2. Whether the district court erred by not giving a special cautionary instruction to view with caution testimony from a noninformant witness who received benefits from the State.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
4. Whether sufficient evidence supported the element of premeditation for first-degree murder.
5. Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence of Dean’s gang affiliation as more prejudicial than probative.
6. Whether cumulative error denied Dean a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Dean’s convictions for premeditated first-degree murder, four counts of aggravated battery, and criminal possession of a firearm.
- The court held the record did not show prejudicial juror misconduct requiring a mistrial.
- The court held Kansas law does not require a special “view with caution” instruction for a noninformant witness testifying in exchange for benefits.
- The court held denial of a new trial was proper because the proffered evidence did not satisfy the newly-discovered-evidence standard.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational juror to find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court upheld admission of gang-affiliation evidence as relevant to identity, motive, and premeditation, and not unduly prejudicial given a limiting instruction.
- With no individual errors, the court rejected the cumulative-error claim.

## Legal Principles

- A mistrial may be declared when prejudicial conduct makes it impossible to proceed without injustice; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and prejudice must be shown on the appellate record.
- An appellant bears the burden to provide a record that affirmatively demonstrates prejudicial error; absent such a record, appellate courts presume the district court acted properly.
- A district court is not legally required to give a special cautionary instruction for testimony by a noninformant witness who receives benefits from the State; ordinary credibility instructions and cross-examination generally suffice.
- A new trial based on newly discovered evidence requires proof that (1) the evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have been produced at trial, and (2) the evidence is so material it would likely produce a different result on retrial.
- In reviewing sufficiency of evidence, the court considers whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational factfinder could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Gang-affiliation evidence may be admissible when relevant to disputed issues such as identity, motive, and premeditation, especially when accompanied by a limiting instruction to reduce unfair prejudice.
- Cumulative error relief is unavailable where no individual error is found.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Dean’s convictions, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion on mistrial and new-trial motions, no special cautionary instruction was required for a noninformant witness who received benefits, the evidence supported premeditation, gang-affiliation evidence was properly admitted with a limiting instruction, and there was no cumulative error.


State v. Dean, 450 P.3d 819 (Kan. 2019)