State v. Jones (2008)

Supreme Court of Kansas · 2008 · Evidence

287 Kan. 559 (2008)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayConfrontation ClauseDying DeclarationsProsecutorial MisconductLesser Included Offensesdying declarationtestimonial hearsay

Facts

After accusing Brannon Wright of taking money, Jones confronted Wright outside a residence and shot him multiple times. While critically wounded, paralyzed in all four limbs, and being transported by ambulance, Wright asked if he was going to die and then identified the shooter and the shooter's address to paramedics. Wright later died from complications caused by the gunshot wounds, and the State introduced his statements through the paramedics at trial.

Issue

Whether Wright's statements to paramedics were admissible despite hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections, whether the prosecutor's closing argument improperly referred to facts not in evidence or misstated the law, and whether the district court clearly erred by failing to instruct on unintentional second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.

Rule

Under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 60-460(e), a dying declaration is admissible if the statement was made voluntarily and in good faith and while the declarant was conscious of impending death and believed there was no hope of recovery. Wright's statements to paramedics were testimonial because they concerned past events, were beyond what was needed for medical care, and would reasonably be expected to be used in prosecution. Even so, a dying declaration may be admitted though testimonial and unconfronted when the declarant was on the brink of death and aware that he was dying. Forfeiture by wrongdoing requires proof that the defendant intended to prevent the witness from testifying.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Noah Mercer was stabbed several times outside an apartment building. While in an ambulance, unable to move his legs and after asking a paramedic, "Am I dying?," Noah received no reassurance that he would recover; when the paramedic then asked who attacked him, Noah named Devin Cole. Noah died two hours later.

At Devin's murder trial, the State offers the paramedic's testimony repeating Noah's identification. Devin had no prior opportunity to cross-examine Noah. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, statements identifying an assailant to paramedics can be testimonial when they concern past events and go beyond what is needed for medical care. But testimonial dying declarations remain admissible where the declarant was both on the brink of death and aware that he was dying, and the statutory dying-declaration requirements are met. Forfeiture by wrongdoing is a separate doctrine and is not required when the statement qualifies as a dying declaration.