## Facts

- Kim R. Ordway was charged with two counts of first-degree murder for killing his parents, Clarence and Betty Ordway, and one count of felony theft for taking their automobile.
- On November 20, 1993, law enforcement discovered Clarence Ordway’s body wrapped in bedding and partially concealed in a garage; the home showed signs of cleaning and blood evidence.
- Clarence died from a shotgun wound to the back; the estimated date of death was November 18, 1993.
- Ordway was located in New York on November 22, 1993, in the taken vehicle; he acknowledged a shotgun was in the car.
- Betty Ordway’s body was later found in the vehicle’s trunk; she had multiple gunshot wounds and blunt-force injuries, including defensive wounds.
- Ordway admitted killing his parents but claimed he acted under psychotic delusions and asserted an insanity defense.
- Ordway requested a lesser-included instruction on voluntary manslaughter under K.S.A. 21-3403(b), contending he held an unreasonable but honest belief deadly force was necessary to protect his children; the trial court refused.
- The jury convicted Ordway of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of felony theft.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required a lesser-included instruction on voluntary manslaughter under K.S.A. 21-3403(b) when the claimed “unreasonable but honest belief” in the need to defend others arose solely from psychotic delusions.
2. Whether the jury instruction on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity was erroneous because it did not quote K.S.A. 22-3428 verbatim.
3. Whether alleged evidentiary errors and prosecutorial-related claims were preserved for appeal and, if preserved, whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed reversible error.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for two counts of second-degree murder and one count of felony theft.
- The court held the trial court properly refused the voluntary-manslaughter instruction because the statutory “unreasonable but honest belief” must be based on real circumstances, not on a psychotic delusion.
- The court held the insanity-consequence instruction was sufficient because it conveyed the substance of K.S.A. 22-3428 and need not track the statute’s language verbatim.
- The court held multiple evidentiary claims were not preserved due to lack of timely, specific trial objections (including failure to renew objections after motions in limine were denied or reserved).
- For preserved evidentiary issues, the court found no abuse of discretion and concluded any arguable error was harmless.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have an affirmative duty to instruct on lesser-included offenses supported by the evidence, even if the supporting evidence is weak, inconclusive, or consists only of the defendant’s testimony.
- Voluntary manslaughter under K.S.A. 21-3403(b) requires an intentional killing committed with an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force is justified to defend another from an aggressor’s imminent unlawful force.
- The “unreasonable but honest belief” required by K.S.A. 21-3403(b) must be grounded in the real circumstances surrounding the killing; a belief arising solely from a psychotic delusion does not satisfy the statute.
- An instruction on the effect of a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict is adequate if it accurately conveys the substance of K.S.A. 22-3428; verbatim quotation is not required.
- Appellate review of evidentiary error generally requires a timely and specific trial objection; when a motion in limine is denied or reserved, the party must object at trial to preserve the issue.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; discretion is abused only when the ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would agree with it.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Ordway’s convictions, holding that voluntary manslaughter under K.S.A. 21-3403(b) is unavailable when the claimed defensive belief is founded only on psychotic delusions rather than real circumstances, and that the insanity-consequence instruction need only convey the statutory substance; unpreserved evidentiary claims were forfeited and preserved rulings fell within the trial court’s discretion.


State v. Ordway, 261 Kan. 776, 934 P.2d 94 (Kan. 1997)