Speaker A
Not that my notes reflect. You're right. I didn't ask of you. I absolutely—well, no problem here. We again thank you both for your arguments this morning. Court will take this matter under advisement.
Kansas Supreme Court hears oral arguments in State v. Christopher Lowrance focusing on prosecutorial misconduct and expert testimony in a capital murder case.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecutorial misstatements about expert fees can raise issues of bias and credibility.
- Expert testimony on victim injuries is critical in determining aggravating factors in capital murder cases.
- Disputed medical evidence can influence jury perceptions of the nature of the crime.
- Harmless error analysis is central to deciding if prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal.
- Clear communication of expert compensation and testimony is essential for a fair trial.
What the video covers
- The case involves a capital murder charge with an attempted rape aggravating factor.
- A key issue is prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments regarding expert witness fees.
- The prosecutor incorrectly claimed the state's medical examiner was unpaid, contrasting with the defense expert's $300/hour fee.
- The defense argues this mischaracterization unfairly biased the jury against their expert.
- Disputes between experts include the presence of bruising on the victim's legs and the cause of a liver laceration.
- These medical findings impact the theory of whether the victim’s pants were forcibly removed and the nature of the attack.
- The presence and source of blood stains in the car are also debated but not conclusively linked to wounds.
- The court discusses the harmless error doctrine in relation to the prosecutorial misstatement.
- Both sides acknowledge the mistake but differ on whether it was prejudicial or harmless.
- The arguments emphasize the importance of expert credibility and evidentiary details in capital cases.
Chapters
- 00:00Opening remarks and case introduction
- 02:28Prosecutorial misconduct on expert fees
- 04:39Dispute over victim's bruising and decomposition
- 07:06Discussion on blood evidence in the vehicle
- 08:53Defense closing on expert testimony and issues
- 10:34State's response on prosecutorial error and bias
- 12:37Court questioning and harmless error analysis
- 15:00Further expert testimony and case details
- 18:07Rebuttal and clarifications
- 22:30Court recess
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
We turn to the next case on this morning's docket. That is case number 101458, State of Kansas v. Christopher Laurance.
Speaker A
Before we begin oral arguments on this case, I just wanted to ensure that our guests are aware of the nature of the case that's coming up.
Speaker A
Very well. Thank you. If you'd like to wait till they're out or you can start now if you like. May it please the court. Sarah Ellen Johnson of the Capital Appellate Defender Office on behalf of Mr. Laurance, and
Speaker A
Your honor, I would like to request three minutes.
Speaker A
Three minutes is granted.
Speaker A
As the court is undoubtedly aware, this case involved a brief remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the first issue in this case,
Speaker A
on the prosecutorial misconduct and closing argument. What happened is that this case was to a large extent a battle of experts on testimony surrounding the victim's injuries or lack thereof,
Speaker A
not so much necessarily on the fact that the death was a homicide, but on other factors going into the circumstances of her death.
Speaker A
And in closing argument, the prosecutor made great hay about the fact that our expert was some fancy $300 per hour expert and he got what he needed for free.
Speaker A
And of course, a couple weeks after the trial, the county attorney received the bill for the state's medical examiner, including bill for his time testifying and for the autopsy itself.
Speaker A
So we had the remand to establish that it had just never occurred to the experienced trial prosecutor who was trying this case that there were costs associated with the autopsy, that we had to pay for that coroner's time in court and that we had
Speaker A
to pay for the autopsy, which seems odd to me how anyone could not understand that an expert who has gone through schooling and has those advanced degrees doesn't get compensated for their time in court.
Speaker A
And so that's the issue: we had this false argument presented to the jury to say our expert shouldn't be believed because he's getting $300 an hour,
Speaker A
but their expert, you know, there's no costs involved in that. And given some of the specific differences between the two experts' testimony, I think this is really critical to have allowed the jury to have this sort of false sense
Speaker A
that one expert had basis for being biased and the other expert didn't when in fact they were both, as we would expect, being paid for their time and paid for their services. Help me understand that harmlessness part of the
Speaker A
analysis and in terms of why were there any differences in how the experts finally ended up significant?
Speaker A
Well, keep in mind that we're talking about a capital murder case, so we have that extra added element of there being an attempted rape.
Speaker A
This is where I think the bruising claim that the state's expert had on the legs is so critical. So whether it was bruising or decomposition—I'm having trouble getting the word out.
Speaker A
Yes. That would go to the state's theory that her pants were removed by some force, by force as opposed to she removing them herself.
Speaker A
You know, certainly would seem logical if you vomit in the car, in the car seat where she was, it's possible that some of that could have gotten on her pants and she could have taken them off herself.
Speaker A
So I think whether that's bruising on her legs or not is very significant to that overt act alleged towards the attempted rape. Also, there's the dispute about the liver laceration,
Speaker A
which I think further goes to the question of was this a brutal attack where she was hit in the abdomen so hard that she received a liver laceration or was that an unfortunate post-death result of being unfortunately thrown from a bridge and landing 50 feet below,
Speaker A
which was what our expert said was the more consistent finding, that there simply wasn't enough blood for that to have been pre-death.
Speaker A
And so I think all of that goes to not necessarily the homicide itself, but the aggravating attempted rape element.
Speaker A
Is there any explanation or theory espoused by either the defense or the state about the one drop basically or the one spot of blood on the door jamb and how that might have happened?
Speaker A
As I recall, the victim—the forensic scientist only identifies blood in one location, and that's on the door jamb inside the car. Well, I don't know that I would say the door jamb was inside the car, but that—I'm not recalling off the top of my head—there was the car seat that had the—there were two, there were two spots on the car seat.
Speaker A
But were those ever identified as blood?
Speaker A
Not exclusively.
Speaker A
No, that preliminary test came up as blood, but of course that can result from a lot of things. And the defense theory on that was certainly that she had vomited in the car. And I'm
Speaker A
just trying to see if there's any tie from the pathologist's opinions to the blood. I don't think either of the—I don't think either of them testified to anything, any obvious wounds from
Speaker A
which she would have been bleeding. There's no testimony that she had, you know, an open outside wound. The only bleeding was that internal liver laceration.
Speaker A
Okay. So there's just those two differences, the bruising and the liver laceration.
Speaker A
Yes. Those are the main differences and some more reluctance on the part of our expert to say for certain that the cause of death was definitively asphyxiation, although with the ligature tied around the neck, it's certainly a logical conclusion to draw.
Speaker A
He was just a little less willing to say there wasn't some other bodily system that contributed to the cause of death.
Speaker A
So those are the main differences. And again, I would say if we're talking about a capital murder where we're relying on an overt act of this forceful removing of the pants, whether there was force involved in that liver laceration pre-death and whether there was bruising on the legs to me is critical towards that element.
Speaker A
That is all the presentation I have on that issue. I was planning on submitting the additional issues on the brief.
Speaker A
Any objection to counsel not filling her time? I see no questions. Thank you, counsel.
Speaker A
Thank you. May it please the court. Chris Elligger appearing on behalf of the state. And certainly here in this case, the prosecutor did make a mistake in his characterization of the fees. But when you look at it in the context of the
Speaker A
overall case, it was not a gross and flagrant error, nor was it motivated by ill will. And certainly it was harmless.
Speaker A
What was the motivation then to point out that it's compensated other than to create some kind of bias against the credibility?
Speaker A
Well, you know, this court has said over and over again that exposing a bias or motive for testifying is a proper subject for the prosecutor to comment on. Exposing the fees of an expert is proper.
Speaker A
Where he made a mistake is his characterization of—he said, "I got mine for free," which was an understandable mistake because, you know, before this case I had the same assumption.
Speaker A
I thought, how can that be understandable?
Speaker A
Well, we thought he was a state employee. I mean, well, don't state employees get paid? Did they think this coroner was a volunteer?
Speaker A
I just don't understand how you can argue this was innocent. Or I think what he meant was that it wasn't an extra cost. I mean, you know, all of us get paid, although sometimes I think I work for free, but sometimes it builds that way.
Speaker A
His point was that we weren't paying an extra 300 bucks an hour for this guy. This is just a state employee. This is just a regular—
Speaker A
ultimately the bottom line is he can't rule out this cause of death the cause of death that our experts said. That was his point. Well, I I go back to I think it was Justice Johnson's question. I'm having trouble understanding what the
Speaker A
point was if it's not credibility and it doesn't seem necessary to point out how much that person's being paid versus nothing by the other expert.
Speaker A
Well, I mean, it certainly just it's just a matter of rhetoric. I mean, he's saying, "Look, they got this highriced uh expert. We've got our gruff uh rough around the edges expert. you know, they they disagree on some things, but the
Speaker A
ultimate conclusion is still the same. And I think that was his point because you look at you look at the at how he concluded that he said because they're both saying ligature strangulation on a non- struggling victim. That was his
Speaker A
point. And then he moved on to something else. So what he was trying to point out to the jury was it really doesn't matter which one you believe. That the ultimate the ultimate uh issue here about how this girl was killed. Both experts agree
Speaker A
or at least couldn't uh you know the defense expert could not rule out that that cause of death. You understand the difficulty here is that you stood up and you justifi you said there was a mistake a factual error in terms of who was
Speaker A
getting paid and who wasn't. Um but that it's okay. It's not ill will because um the prosecutors permitted to impugn the credibility of the witnesses by suggesting that they're have a bias. Um which is true. We've said that lots of
Speaker A
times. Um but then you said that wasn't what he was doing. He was I just we're feeling a little whipsawed up here.
Speaker A
Problem which what's your argument? You have to well first off that at first on a bigger basis it's not improper to comment on how much guy's getting paid but ultimately he wasn't show bias but then you're saying he wasn't trying to
Speaker A
do that to me it sounded like a kind of I think he was actually trying to do a little bit Mr. Oler, it sounds kind of like a gratuitous, as I understand, five times in six pages of transcript dig on
Speaker A
the way to demonstrating that they agreed. In which case, he's really trying to support the testimony of the opposing witness and saying, "Look, he doesn't really differ meaningfully from my witness." I I certainly I think the prosecutor was trying to do a little bit
Speaker A
of both. I mean, you know, he's he's making an argument to the jury to persuade them. And then if he's just doing it as a certuitous dig, why is that not ill will? Well, I I think he's trying to show that, hey, this guy's
Speaker A
being paid a lot of money and and that's something you can consider in in uh evaluating his credibility, but then regardless of all that, but you should be leaving because you agree. But but regardless of all that, it really
Speaker A
doesn't matter. Um because they both came to the same conclusion. I mean, the prosecutor is trying to cover all his bases, I guess, is is the best way to say it. I think that's a fairer characterization of what was going and
Speaker A
that's what I'm trying to do. the the textbook example of what you say he was attempting to do or she was attempting to do was to say here's our expert. The expert said X and the defense expert uh who was getting paid a
Speaker A
lot of money for the opinion said the same thing. So you have two opinions from two different experts saying the same thing and one of them is a super expert because of all the money he or she got paid. Therefore, we move on.
Speaker A
Isn't that the the textbook example to do that? But it's the dig dig dig about $300 an hour that I think is troubling some of us. That is the textbook way to do it. But let's be honest. I mean, this
Speaker A
is a this is a trial. This is a closing argument. I've never seen a textbook closing argument. I don't know what a textbook closing argument looks like. I mean, you got to understand, and you all know this. I mean, the prosecutor is
Speaker A
speaking extemporaneously. He doesn't have a script. He may have some notes, but he's he's got some ideas, some concepts in his head, things he wants to get across to the jury. And sometimes all of us misspeak and and that's simply
Speaker A
what he did here. But it wasn't certainly wasn't motivated by ill will. But I think in when you look at the overall picture though, it was ultimately harmless because the the ultimate point that he said was they're both saying look at your strangulation
Speaker A
of a non- struggling victim. So he's basically saying, you know, he's getting paid a lot of money, he's not getting paid much, but they both come the ultimate conclusion is the same, and you really don't need to worry about all of
Speaker A
the other the other little differences between their opinions. Um but in a way he was trying to cover all of his bases.
Speaker A
He was trying to trying to point out that you know this this expert that the uh that the other side brought in he's paid a lot of money and you can consider that in in considering how much weight
Speaker A
and credibility to give to his testimony. But ultimately in the end both experts can't rule out this cause of death and that was the and that's why it's harmless. Mr. Ellinger, we we've had a number of these cases. I I can't
Speaker A
remember if you've argued any of them, but I know this has become kind of a frequent issue. Uh, and we've had some fairly close to the line cases where we had the two plus prosecutor saying the expert basically would say 2 plus two is five.
Speaker A
And we've had the $3,500. He's being paid $3,500 to say it was an accident essentially or $3,500 worth of reasons to say it was an accident. And I can think of several. I can too. Yeah. And I guess I I'm concerned because you seem
Speaker A
to recognize that there's a pretty fine line there. And it seems like maybe the the answer is that other than other than pointing out that an expert witness has been paid.
Speaker A
There shouldn't be any further comment such as they'll say two plus two is five or they have $3,500 worth of reasons or whatever or comparisons to the fact that the state isn't paying their expert assuming that were true. Uh I'm saying
Speaker A
why is it that they can say anything other than oh by the way their expert's being paid. Well I think the bright line is you can't say that this expert is being paid to lie. He's he's he's telling you whatever he wants to say,
Speaker A
whatever they want him to say because they're paying him to to to lie essentially. That's the bright line, right? Um but it gets so close to that, you know? I mean, obviously that's the implication. It's without saying, "Oh,
Speaker A
he's lying." You know, how do you prevent that? Well, I think you stick with that rule. Um but I think if you look at the case law that the cases where it's been upheld, it's I think it's certainly okay to tell the
Speaker A
jury, "This guy's getting paid a lot of money. please, you know, weigh that in in your consideration. And and I think that's not that hard to do, though, without making additional comments. And this the additional comment here, though, I think it is critical is that
Speaker A
he did not suggest that Dr. Young lied for a fee. What he actually suggested was they're both saying the same thing, which is what And you know that's working against me this morning for whatever reason because you're basically
Speaker A
saying it doesn't matter that he's being paid $300 an hour, but I'm going to talk about it five or six extra times. And and and that that gets back to the chief's point of this is where you're digging, you're digging, you're digging
Speaker A
and so at some point you guys got to stop or you're going to cross the line and require a reversal.
Speaker A
And I don't I mean and so when you get a case like this where you're admitting it doesn't matter that he's being paid $300 yet it keeps coming up. Uh again, I I would I would point out that
Speaker A
the prosecutor in the first place was trying to cover all his bases because in hindsight, it's always easy to look back and say, "Well, you didn't need to say this or do that." But at that time, he doesn't know that. So, he he can't get
Speaker A
in the he doesn't know what the jurors are thinking. So, he's trying to cover all of his bases. Six times. I mean, how many times do you run the bases in a, you know, uh, when you're a runner?
Speaker A
That that's where I think you have to focus and talk about that the repetitiveness does not show ill will and malice on this one. Well, I think that the repet I mean, I think if you follow the case law, I all the
Speaker A
prosecutors know that you're allowed to comment on the amount the guy's getting paid uh as it affects his bias and or any potential bias and it's something that the jury can figure. So prosecutors knowing that feel that that's fair game
Speaker A
that they can they can go there. And I don't think that there's ever been a case that says you can only mention it once or you can only mention it three times. I mean there's no there's never been any kind of case that says that. So
Speaker A
how would a prosecutor how how would he know that that's a line that he has that he's crossed? You know I don't think there was any objection at the time to to point out that hey even the defense thought maybe he was
Speaker A
crossing the line. There was no admonishment from the court to say hey you're going a little too far here. Why why don't you stop? And I think that there's another piece of the harmless error analysis that I I haven't got to
Speaker A
yet. Let's just look at all the other evidence. Yeah. Would you please do that? Before you get to that, let's just talk about the pathologist. I mean, I want to get to the harmless error in this, but I want to get to that
Speaker A
pathology, but go ahead and let just No, no, no. My question does have to do with the rest of the evidence and what would you please review for me and and maybe my colleagues what evidence supports the attempted rape?
Speaker A
Well, um, we start with, uh, the party and the fact was that that Cole Osborne, who the guy who had the party, he said she could stay there. She could spend the night, but the defendant was very insistent that no, I'll take her home. I
Speaker A
want to get very insistent on getting her into his car. You have the other witness there, uh, Ramsay Oddell, who says, you know, looked to me like he wanted to get some, meaning he wanted to he wanted to have sex with this girl. Um
Speaker A
he apparently, you know, he was his conduct, his behavior was fairly obvious. Then he drives her out to this uh uh secluded part of the country out out 10 miles outside of town, fairly close to an area where he had previously
Speaker A
taken a girlfriend to have sex. How and that was four or five years prior to this. It was some years prior, but that that's the that's the evidence that that he had been out to that location before for sex. I I don't want to move past
Speaker A
that. Go ahead and answer the question there, but I don't want to move past.
Speaker A
No, go ahead. You I'm fine going because we have the the evidence that previously he would take his girlfriend to his favorite spot in the country and she would voluntarily remove her pants and panties. He would come around to the
Speaker A
passenger side door and they would have sex. Here we have a victim that's found without her pants and panties. And why does this evidence make it more likely that he forcibly removed her panties when we have have the the blood on the door frame on the
Speaker A
passenger side? If it were to follow what had happened before, it would be uh would contradict that he forcibly removed them. So, I mean, how can you say that's relevant to to an attempt uh to rape by forcibly removing clothing?
Speaker A
It's relevant to an attempt. We didn't say he completed the rape. It's it's relevant to his intent in going out there. It's more evidence that he intended to have sex with her. And then and you also have to remember that that
Speaker A
she was so intoxicated. intended to have sex with her, but even if he didn't think it was consensual, why is driving the victim to your favorite place in the country, why is that the an overt act rather than mere preparation? We have to
Speaker A
draw that line. If you're merely preparing, then you haven't made an attempt. You have to do the overt act. Well, I think the overt act I there's multiple steps here, but I think that is an overt act when you consider that she was so drunk
Speaker A
that she she could not have consented to sex. She was so drunk she couldn't even walk. Um, and I think the the corner his his analysis showed her blood alcohol was like.188 or something like that. She could not consent. We didn't say this
Speaker A
didn't have to be forcible rape. She was too drunk to consent to sex. Any sex with her would have been raped. Was that an argument? Was that an argument made at trial that she was so drunk she's incapable? And was that were they
Speaker A
instructed on that about the the involuntary ability to consent? Right. I don't know. It's a good argument, but I don't I don't recall seeing that that that was part of the elements of of rape that unconscious or incapable. I mean,
Speaker A
certainly her her alcohol blood alcohol content was brought up. It was brought up that she was too drunk to walk, that she I mean, her level of intoxication was certainly presented to the jury.
Speaker A
Don't we have to infer though that he is the one that removed her pants? If she voluntarily removed her pants, what overt act did he take?
Speaker A
Again, I think it's it's the entire process of taking her out to the to the country. But I think uh again, because she was so drunk, I think you can infer that that he removed her clothing. I don't think she was capable of removing
Speaker A
her clothing. She was so drunk she could not even walk. Um, and she was so drunk she couldn't struggle against somebody who tied a cord around her neck and strangled her. I mean, the the corner's uh testimony was she didn't struggle
Speaker A
because she was so drunk she was almost essentially passed out. Um, so she couldn't I think a very reasonable if you look at the evidence in line most favorable to the state when you look at like the sufficiency evidence reasonable
Speaker A
person easily could conclude. I'm concerned though about how many inferences were stacking. Um, I think Miss Johnson made that argument in her brief that to get to the conclusion, you have to stack about three inferences. I don't know that you
Speaker A
have to stack three inferences. I think you can make reason you can draw reasonable conclusions from this evidence that there isn't there's not a whole lot of other conclusions to to draw. And I think the other thing you
Speaker A
got to remember is look at look at the preposterousness of his story. I guess you if I was sitting on the jury, I don't know that I would have any other any other choice to make but to find him
Speaker A
guilty. His story was yeah, I got her in the car. I drove her away and at some point I blacked out and some mysterious person came along to the car, opened the car door, removed her pants, strangled her, killed her, left me alone, left her
Speaker A
there, shut the door, and walked away or something. And so then I woke up and well, there's a dead woman in my car.
Speaker A
What do I do? Let's don't go to the police or go to the hospital. Let's just go drive out of town and dump her in the river. That is such a ridiculous story that I I don't know that any other any
Speaker A
other conclusion could be drawn from this evidence other than what the state presented. Uh I want to circle clear back to the question I had earlier. Why isn't the prosecutorial mis statement about the fee um cause harm when we get
Speaker A
to the attempted rape part and the the bruising and um the liver laceration and how that may fit into evidence of force.
Speaker A
You know, when I read this case, that that stuff didn't even register in my head as part of the I mean, I I kind of was wondering why are we even going into this because that doesn't seem to be
Speaker A
evidence of I mean, I I suppose the liver injury could be evidence of I I think maybe the theory was that when he tried to climb on top of her on the on the passenger side that maybe he rammed
Speaker A
her in the in the abdomen with his knee or something like that or he punched her, but I I don't know that that was I don't know that that was actually that argument was made at trial. To me, the
Speaker A
the evidence of the attempted rape was the, you know, the the the first off the evidence from the P party and the observations of the of the of the people there that he was interested in getting sex. He was insistent on getting her in
Speaker A
his car. Uh she was so drunk she couldn't consent. She is so drunk she couldn't walk. He takes her out to the country where he has taken his girlfriend before to have sex. follows the same MMO, removes the bottom half of
Speaker A
her clothing, climbs to the passenger seat. Something does doesn't work out the way he plans, and then he decides he he he strangles her and and at that point he he throws her into the into the river. I think that's where you get the
Speaker A
attempted rape. I'm not sure that that force was was uh that a whole lot of force was was even necessary because she was so she was so drunk she couldn't really struggle. So, I don't know that I don't know that all
Speaker A
of that other evidence was really all that all that relevant. I think what the prosecutor was saying when he was talking about the uh the the the experts, he was really he was getting back to the liature strangulation
Speaker A
because that's what he closed with. He said, "I got what I wanted for free because they're both saying ligature strangulation of a non-struggling victim." That was the context of his comment. You know, the other the other discussion about the the the other
Speaker A
injuries I think was sort of secondary or even tertiary to the to the fundamental issue here, which was one, she was killed by strangulation.
Speaker A
Somebody somebody strangled her and the circumstantial evidence presents that there was an attempted rape. Um, you know, and and I don't know how far, nobody knows how far he'd gotten his attempt other than, you know, he certainly got her part of her clothing
Speaker A
off. Um, got her out to the out to the woods. Uh, but he didn't perfect the rape because there was no, you know, we didn't find any DNA evidence or evidence of of penetration or anything. So, does that answer your question or or Mr.
Speaker A
Josler, the jury instructions are in the record, correct? They should be the final ones. Well, I'm I'm I'm asking because I really am curious about whether they were instructed on an ability to consent method. It has been so long since I
Speaker A
reviewed the record. It's I mean, it's here in the court, so I I don't recall.
Speaker A
Okay. Now, the uh the fact that as one person testified that he was insistent that he be the one to take her from the home, is that in your view an overt act toward an attempted rape? And that then
Speaker A
in turn is laid on top of the fact that he did not just take her home, but he took her to this place where he had had consensual sex with a female a few years earlier. Yes. In fact, he didn't take
Speaker A
her home. I mean, he said he was, but but he had a plan in his head all along that he was going to take her out to the woods and have sex with her. Well, it's it's one thing for someone to have told
Speaker A
him, "Why don't you take her home at the party?" And he says, "Yes, I will." And before they get there, he takes her out to the country. My question is whether it is a separate overt act for him to be
Speaker A
so insistent at the party that he's going to be the one to take her and when they leave then in addition to that, he takes her out to the country. I I certainly think so because the the person who had the party said she can
Speaker A
stay here. Nobody said she needed to go anywhere. It was the defendant's idea that she needed to go somewhere and it was his insistence that he be the one to take her. Um that I think shows that he
Speaker A
he formed that intent right then and there uh before he left the party and he took her away from the party with that intent that he was going to I think he saw a vulnerable vulnerable victim that he he he thought he could get have sex
Speaker A
with and that was his intent the entire time. He had no intention of ever taking her home. He was going to take her out to the country and have sex with her whether she liked it or not.
Speaker A
Thank you. Do we have any further questions of council? Council, I read the forensic scientist, uh, Creme Swanson, I think was her name, um, testimony. It's very short. Wasn't didn't take very long at all. And I think that the prosecutor maybe failed
Speaker A
to ask a critical question about those two blood stains or those two stains on the seat because I can't find anywhere where she identifies it even in preliminary testing as blood.
Speaker A
Well, I know there was and it was cited in the brief. I think it was page 81.
Speaker A
There was a site where she said, "I I tested the stain and it it came out it tested positive for blood." Uh that's the door jam. That's all I could find.
Speaker A
But anyway, if if you'll and I'll review we'll we'll I'm sure the court will be looking at that closely. But assuming with me that there isn't a direct question and statement that those two spots were tested as positive for blood,
Speaker A
can you address the harmlessness of the other um statement by the prosecutor about the vomit story not working and why that would not be harmless if if there is no evidence of well of the stains on the seat being blood? I think
Speaker A
again he probably if if that's the case, if the record bears out what you're saying, then I think he probably made the same mistake I did and thought that, you know, he just conflated the stains.
Speaker A
Um, but again, I'll tell you the inference is there. I mean, so secondary though, because the the story about the vomit thing was was was tied to his story that that uh you know, he went to a gas station with her to to get
Speaker A
something to drink after she vomited and clean up or something like that and and that then she got in a truck with some some stranger and disappeared. Well, that was proven wrong by by surveillance video from the from the uh uh the
Speaker A
convenience store. So, the the the lie behind the vomit story was was well established by by other evidence that the prosecutor's point was that, you know, the vomit story isn't working. So, so he moves on to another he makes
Speaker A
another story up because his first that was his first story. And the prosecutor's saying, "Yeah, but the vomit story ain't working." So, he moves on to something else. And really the reason I'm not sure that the vomit story was was just was totally
Speaker A
uh uh undercut by the by that video. I'm not sure how much that that little drop of blood really plays into that. Um so I think there again it's harmless because the ultimate point was this story was a
Speaker A
lie and it was proven to be a lie by other evidence besides what the prosecutor said. Except isn't vomiting a plausible reason she might have removed her own clothes? Uh no I don't think so.
Speaker A
Uh I've I've known a fair number of people who have vomited in their lives and I've never known any of them to in a public place completely remove their clothing because they had vomit on it.
Speaker A
And and then of course I'm not I mean she couldn't walk so because she was so drunk. I would be shocked that she could take her clothing off because she was so drunk. Um and it was the bottom it was
Speaker A
the bottom half of her attire, wasn't it? Yes. And of course, logic would dictate if you vomit out of your mouth, it's going to go down. If you're sitting in a car seat, it's going to be on the
Speaker A
front part of your clothing and so forth. Um, the the vomit story just simply didn't hold a lot of water. And again, when you look at the o the overall evidence and you can juxtapose that with his story of
Speaker A
what happened, which is so unbelievable as to just well, it's just ridiculous. I think that you would have to come to the conclusion that it's harmless.
Speaker A
So if the most uh believable scenario one can divine um uh from from the known facts uh would subort confess uh conviction that's uh meets the sufficiency of the evidence test. Oh well certainly because sufficiency the evidence standard you have to look at
Speaker A
the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and you have to resolve any conflicts in favor of the state and certainly in this case the the evidence is sufficient.
Speaker A
There are no further questions. I would simply ask the court affirm the lower court. Any further questions, council?
Speaker A
Thank you, councel. [Applause] Reserve three minutes for rebuttal. Just to clarify a few points. First, um and this is on page 46 of the volume that involves um closing argument. uh the prosecutor's vomit story line was separate from the BP AMO gas station
Speaker A
story not working because immediately after the paragraph where he says the vomit story doesn't work, he then moves on to talking about how the BP Amo story also doesn't work. Um so he was more focused on she didn't vomit in the car
Speaker A
even though we have other witnesses saying the car clearly smelled like somebody had thrown up in the car. Um and I would also uh note justice fire that yes they were instructed on on intoxication. Thank you. Um and finally
Speaker A
um I would suggest that if insisting on taking a drunk girl home is sufficient to establish an overt act towards attempted rape. Um I'm afraid that we have an awful lot of attempted rapes happening in every college town in the
Speaker A
state every weekend. Um there has to be something more than he was really insistent on taking her home. Um that is simply too far removed to be an overt act to support a capital murder. That's a that's a little misleading because
Speaker A
it's not that he insisted on taking her home rather than let her drive. It was he insisted on taking her away when it was unnecessary.
Speaker A
That there's a big difference there. uh uh as to uh the meaning of the insistence. I I guess I would disagree that there's a huge difference there. Um but regardless of of which one it is, simply insisting on giving a girl a
Speaker A
ride, um I'm I'm leerary of letting that be an overt act towards an attempted murder, especially in the context where or an attempted rape where it's supporting a capital murder charge.
Speaker A
I would respectfully ask that Mr. Lorance's convictions be reversed and his case remanded for a new trial. Any further questions of councel? Thank you, councel. Thank you both for your arguments this morning. Court will take this matter under advisement. This time
Speaker A
the court is in recess for 15 minutes. All right.
Topics:Kansas Supreme CourtState v Christopher Lowrancecapital murderprosecutorial misconductexpert testimonyclosing argumentmedical examinerbruisingliver lacerationharmless error
