In State v. Adams, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ms. Asa Adams for first-degree felony murder. No. 101,234, slip op. at 2 (Kan. Apr. 29, 2011). On appeal, Ms. Adams argued that the district judge improperly answered a question by the jury, erred in giving an expert witness instruction, and that she did not receive effective assistance of counsel during trial.
The court found that the judge did make a mistake; he improperly summarized the testimony of a witness in a written response to a question by the jury. Instead, the judge should have read the witness’s testimony to the jury. However, the state responded this error was invited by Ms. Adams because she was present, and knew that the judge summarized the witness testimony this way at trial. She engaged in a discussion of the jury’s question, and afterward, her attorney agreed with the response the court formulated. As a result, the court agreed Ms. Adams cannot argue this error on appeal. Id. at 17.
Lastly, the court swiftly rejects Ms. Adams claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court finds Ms. Adams “cannot meet either prong of the Strickland test.” Id. at 21. The trial counsel representation was objectively reasonable; he “exercised exactly the judgement counsel is meant to exercise, including judgment designed to save the client from himself o[r] herself.” Id.
This case demonstrates the importance of having experienced, vigilant counsel in the courtroom. It was wrong for the judge to summarize the witness’ testimony to the jury. However, the client can’t use that error in the appeal, because her lawyer agreed to it. Therefore, even though the judge made a mistake which could have changed the result of the case, the client will not get a new trial.
To contact experienced criminal defense lawyers who know how to avoid inviting error, contact Bell Folsom, P.A.