I misspoke. He moved a trailer onto the property in July 1998 and installed two phone lines: one for his landline and one for his computer. Of course, Robinson's argument applies to the use of duplicates under Federal Rule of Evidence 1003 only, and it completely ignores Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(d), which defines an original to include any accurate printout of electronically stored information. Judge Anderson's rulings indicate that Robinson effectively discharged the DPDU by retaining Thomas. Robinson had the opportunity to formulate his own questions regarding case-specific facts in the questionnaire. Did jurors ignore admonitions, demonstrating actual prejudice? The body was fully clothed, and the subject was wearing an adult disposable diaper. The trial court's instructions on the capital murder counts, along with the lesser included offense instructions, provided that the jury must find that the murders occurred in Johnson County, Kansas. host = new String(location.hostname); 213439(a)(6). See State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555, 570, 316 P.3d 696 (2013) (Recusal is required under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when the judge is actually biased or there is a constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias. He claimed his name was John Osborne and picked up Lisa and Tiffany at Lisas sisters home. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 105455, 111 S.Ct. at 2755 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Cf. Also, the State presented overwhelming evidence supporting its lone aggravating circumstance that Robinson killed more than one person, and the State effectively challenged and often discredited Robinson's mitigation evidence. Robinson argues that the sexually motivated designation constitutes an unlawful variance from the sentence announced from the bench. 300 Kan. at 8081. STATE of Kansas, Appellee/Cross-appellant, v. John E. ROBINSON, Sr., Appellant/Cross-appellee. However, Juror 324 expressed confidence in her ability to set aside her opinion and serve impartially. "I've always loved him," she said. Since Witt, the Supreme Court has deferred to the trial court's finding of substantial impairment, even in situations where the challenged juror at times expressed a willingness to impose a sentence of death. 222401a. We find no constitutional violation in Judge Anderson's rulings. 214624(e) (Furse 1995), with one minor alteration. The parties proceeded to jury selection and completed the first (hardship inquiry) and second (small group voir dire) phases without making any reference to Robinson's prior convictions or terms of incarceration. 21012 (5th ed.2012) (where search challenged on state law grounds, courts examine underlying state statute and legislative intent to determine if suppression is an available remedy); 2 LaFave, Israel, King & Kerr, Criminal Procedure 3.1(e), pp. During this phase, Robinson's counsel asked panel members whether certain case-specific facts, including violence against women, BDS & M activity, adultery, gruesome photographs, and other case-specific evidence anticipated at trial would render them incapable of serving as impartial jurors. At a family reunion in 1983, Donald and Helen told Robinson they were pursuing a private adoption. at 2756 (Breyer, J., dissenting). That paradigm comports with the long-standing rule that courts are to impose the punishment that was in effect when the crime was committed and precludes the punishment-increasing gamesmanship displayed here. State v. Molina, 299 Kan. 651, 658, 325 P.3d 1142 (2014) (quoting State v.. Breeden, 297 Kan. 567, 577, 304 P.3d 660 [2013] ). Carr, 300 Kan. at 114. Robinson called Donald and Helen and told them a baby was available immediately. Kansas has yet to execute anyone since the 1994 adoption of the current capital murder statute, so the average time between sentencing and execution in this State is currently incalculable. 11 failed to include the statutory presumption under K.S.A. The owner, Colleen Davis, identified Robinson at trial as the person she knew as Turner. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 [1974] ). Robinson relies on United States v. RamirezEncarnacion, 291 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir.2002), in support of the proposition that boilerplate language describing the effectiveness of search warrants is legally insufficient. The Eighth Circuit rejected the challenge because the evidence failed to demonstrate that the current investigation was related to the matter handled previously by the magistrate or that the magistrate was still employed as a prosecutor at the time the current investigation began. No, I don't know. Cunningham also had no serious concerns about Robinson's history of manipulating women inside prison, particularly Bonner. 621830 (Corrick 1964) was repealed, the legislature's intent is clear: district magistrates may no longer issue search warrants outside their home judicial district, but district judges can.. 214624(e) unconstitutional, there would have been no death penalty in Kansas; (4) in the absence of a death penalty, Robinson would have been sentenced to life in prison with a hard 50year or hard 25year minimum sentence without parole; and, therefore, (5) we should vacate his death sentence and remand for imposition of a life sentence. The defense lodged no objection. Robinson worked on an inmate building crew and performed a substantial amount of computer work for the benefit of the prison. After the ruling, the prosecutor immediately explained that the State's argument was that Stasi would not have voluntarily relinquished her parental rightsan inference reasonably supported by the evidence. In other words, jurors may assign zero weight to a particular piece of evidence without making an error of law. While State's Exhibit 19EE was admitted after Judge Anderson had admitted State's Exhibits 11 and 12, it nevertheless confirms the accuracy of the contents of these exhibits. However, in Hensley, the juror actually consulted with his minister during the course of deliberations, speaking at length about mercy and the death penalty. On the record before the court, the first, second, fifth, and eighth factors favored transfer of venue out of Johnson County at the time Judge Anderson ruled on the motions. Search warrants issued by a district magistrate judge may be executed only within the judicial district in which said judge resides or within the judicial district to which said judge has been assigned pursuant to K.S.A. Thomas also testified to the events giving rise to his withdrawal or discharge. Find Nancy Robinson's phone number, address, and email on Spokeo, the leading people search directory for contact information and public records. 213439(a)(6). Once in Kansas, Trouten called her mother almost every day. The instruction, on the other hand, focuses on acts that are a substantial and integral part of an overall continuing crime plan. Instruction No. In this bill, the legislature defined judges of the district court to include district judges and district magistrate judges and granted them authority to exercise their powers from anywhere within their judicial districts. Robinson suggests there was no evidence jurors needed such protection. John Edward Robinson's Kids & Family: 5 Fast Facts Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. at 173, 181. The subsection begins with a legislative grant of jurisdiction to law enforcement officers in Johnson County, allowing them to execute warrants countywide. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. As such, we find K.S.A. Forensic odontologist Daniel Winter confirmed Trouten's identity with her known dental records. Robinson first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the State's theory that Robinson took Trouten by way of deception. 5. 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. There can be only one conviction for each allowable unit of prosecution. Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 49798; see Harris, 284 Kan. at 57778. 60464. This protection is incorporated into and made applicable to the States through the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. 11 concerning where the prosecution may be must have been confusing to the jury. 213439(a)(6) and attributes to them the status of legal requirements prerequisite to such a finding. In fact, defense counsel fought vigorously to exclude Shields' testimony for good reasonthese facts were detrimental to his mitigation case. Defense counsel objected, claiming the comment invited speculation from jurors. Instead, the State's witnesses merely testified to the fact of their seizure and subsequent testing for trace evidence. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363, 86 S.Ct. Therefore the prosecutor's statement did not constitute prejudicial misconduct. But previously, in discussing the sufficiency of the evidence, the majority asserted that there was enough evidence that the jurors could have found that all of the murders were related to one another in some way and therefore part of a common scheme or course of conduct. (Emphasis added.) Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. State v. Howard, 287 Kan. 686, 691, 198 P.3d 146 (2008). 222401a(5), consistent with the context and history giving rise to the 1994 amendment creating this subsection, LPD and OPPD officers had territorial jurisdiction to execute the search warrants in Olathe. The Supreme Court has explained: Trial judges necessarily require a great deal of latitude in scheduling trials. Juror 316 said he had no viable solutions but shared in his questionnaire the belief that the appeals process should be streamlined. Nevertheless, it is easily discernible from the complaint as a whole what the charges were and that Robinson was the person charged under the capital murder and the aggravated interference with parental custody counts. Robinson offers no support for his claim that the prosecutor lacked a good-faith basis for her questioning, and even if he did, the expert's testimony on direct implied that he had not researched KDOC policy specifically, providing the prosecutors with a good-faith basis for the inquiry on cross-examination. However, we have made clear that this wide latitude is not limitless, and prosecutors may not comment on facts beyond the evidence. We find no error in Judge Anderson's denial of defendant's motion to suppress on these grounds. The jury, if its verdict is a unanimous recommendation of a sentence of death, shall designate in writing, signed by the foreman of the jury, the statutory aggravating circumstances which it found beyond a reasonable doubt.