Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"The Kansas Hard-Forty Law," The Honorable Tom Malone, 32 W.L.J. 147, 153 (1993).

"Kansas' New Death Penalty Law: Will It Be Administered Fairly and Consistently?" Marianne Deagle, 34 W.L.J. 539, 548 (1995).

"The Problem of Implementing a Constitutional System of Capital Punishment," Stephen R. McAllister, 43 K.L.R. 1039, 1067 (1995).

"Federal Constitutional Requirements Governing Trial, Sentencing and Direct Review in Capital Cases," Stephen McAllister, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 20, 22, 25 (1995).

"Criminal Procedure Review: Survey of Recent Cases," 44 K.L.R. 895 (1996).

Survey of Recent Cases, 45 K.L.R. 1395 (1997).

"Are We Not Treating the Judiciary as the 'Ugly Duckling' of Government?" Ed Collister, 9 Kan. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y, No. 2, 302 (1999).

"What Every Lawyer Should Know About Crimes Victims' Rights in Kansas," Suzanne Valdez, 80 J.K.B.A. No. 10, 26 (2011).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Burden of proof of aggravating versus mitigating circumstances examined. State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 156, 176, 834 P.2d 342 (1992).

2. Mid-deliberation jury instruction on premeditation, relevance of manner in which unconscious victim murdered, sufficiency of evidence establishing aggravating circumstances, precedential value of death penalty cases examined. State v. Kingsley, 252 Kan. 761, 787, 851 P.2d 370 (1993).

3. Balancing test not required; one aggravating factor may outweigh several mitigating factors. State v. Phillips, 252 Kan. 937, 850 P.2d 877 (1993).

4. Procedures for remand of hard 40 sentence discussed. State v. Harmon, 254 Kan. 87, 100, 865 P.2d 1011 (1993).

5. Whether evidence sufficient to prove the aggravating factor that defendant committed crime to avoid prosecution examined. State v. Reed, 256 Kan. 547, 564, 886 P.2d 854 (1994).

6. Whether judge's allowing victims' family's statements to be presented to jury at sentencing constituted reversible error examined. State v. Gideon, 257 Kan. 591, 608, 894 P.2d 850 (1995).

7. Appeal of hard 40 is automatic upon imposition of sentence even if defendant fails to timely perfect appeal. State v. Alford, 257 Kan. 830, 836, 896 P.2d 1059 (1995).

8. Special appellate review privileges do not apply to sentence of life imprisonment. State v. Hayes, 258 Kan. 629, 637, 908 P.2d 597 (1995).

9. Defendant was not denied fair trial because of improper remarks by prosecutor during closing arguments. State v. Collier, 259 Kan. 346, 353, 913 P.2d 597 (1996).

10. Evidence sufficient to support finding that one or more aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances. State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 289, 918 P.2d 609 (1996).

11. Trial court's ruling that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors in hard 40 sentence analysis upheld. State v. Hickles, 261 Kan. 74, 89, 929 P.2d 141 (1996).

12. Mitigating circumstances did not outweigh aggravating circumstance for hard 40 sentence balancing test purposes. State v. Follin, 263 Kan. 28, 52, 947 P.2d 8 (1997).

13. Prosecutorial misstatements of fact and law reviewed in hard 40 case where no trial objection made held harmless error. State v. White, 263 Kan. 283, 305, 950 P.2d 1316 (1997).

14. Privilege not asserted during trial; no record of context of communication; relief hereunder denied. State v. Spry, 266 Kan. 523, 529, 973 P.2d 783 (1999).

15. Convictions of capital murder, attempted rape and aggravated burglary are affirmed; constitutionality of Kansas capital murder statute affirmed; remanded for instructional error and separate sentencing procedure to determine whether defendant should be sentenced to death. State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 40 P.3d 139 (2001).

16. Defendant's 5th Amendment issues are asserted errors and therefore reviewable by the appellate court. State v. Cheever, 295 Kan. 229, 284 P.3d 1007 (2012).