Background
After two fistfights in Old Town Wichita, La’Niha Banks fired multiple shots at vehicles occupied by women involved in the altercations. One shot killed LaTionna Johnson, and Banks also fired at a vehicle driven by Amunique Cavitt. Banks testified that she believed the vehicles were coming toward her and that she acted in self-defense.
A Sedgwick County jury convicted Banks of felony murder, attempted first-degree murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm. She challenged the admission of a statement by Cavitt, the exclusion of an unrelated police-force report, and the jury instructions concerning imperfect self-defense and attempted involuntary manslaughter.
The Court’s Holding
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. It held that Cavitt’s pre-fight statement that Banks had approached her vehicle with a gun was properly admitted as an excited utterance. Substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding that Cavitt made the statement while under the stress of a startling confrontation.
The court also held that the unrelated district attorney report finding police force reasonable was irrelevant and improperly resembled a legal opinion. Imperfect self-defense was not legally available on the felony-murder count because the predicate felony was criminal discharge of a firearm; only complete self-defense could negate that offense. Although an attempted involuntary manslaughter instruction was legally and factually appropriate on the attempted-murder count, its omission was not clear error because the court was not firmly convinced the verdict would have changed.
Key Takeaways
- Excited-utterance findings supporting hearsay admission are reviewed for substantial evidence.
- Imperfect self-defense does not apply to felony murder predicated on criminal discharge of a firearm.
- Courts assess factual support for an instruction in the light most favorable to the requesting party, even when that party did not request it at trial.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes complete self-defense, which may negate the use-of-force element of criminal discharge of a firearm, from imperfect self-defense, which does not create a mitigated version of that predicate felony. It also confirms that an unrequested lesser-offense instruction may be factually warranted but still fail to justify reversal absent clear error.