Stand-Your-Ground ruling supported by sufficient evidence

Patrick H. Dunn won in State v. Dukes, No. 121,790 (Kan. App. February 12, 2021), affirming Judge Mitchell's finding that Mr. Dukes was entitled to Stand-Your-Ground immunity in a Sedgwick County voluntary manslaughter prosecution. The prosecution stemmed from an altercation where the decedent had approached Mr. Dukes in his truck, ran back to his car after Mr. Dukes displayed a handgun, and retrieved his own handgun and headed back towards Mr. Dukes' truck. Mr. Duke shot at the decedent, resulting in the decedent's death. The district court held that Mr. Dukes met the standard for both a subjective and objectively reasonable belief that use of deadly force was justified. Under the appropriate standard of review, the COA affirmed:

In particular, the court found that Berryman had a semi-automatic weapon within reach (under him on the passenger seat) when he returned to his car. The district court found that this evidence and a reasonable inference therefrom—Berryman had purposefully retrieved the gun since Lawton was in the passenger seat when Berryman drove into the parking lot—combined with Dukes' testimony that he believed Berryman was retrieving a gun with the intent to shoot him and that Dukes saw Berryman with a gun when Dukes drove away, were sufficient to convince a reasonable person that Dukes acted with a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

Having reviewed the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, we conclude there is evidence in the record that supports the district court's finding that Dukes "waffled"—i.e., vacillated or flip-flopped—in his account of whether Berryman had a gun when he first approached Dukes' truck. As the district court indicated, Dukes initially told the police that Berryman carried a gun when he came toward the truck, but at the hearing Dukes stated he thought he saw Berryman with a gun when Dukes was driving out of the parking lot. The State places too fine a point on the district court's use of the verb "waffled" (instead of using a word like "altered"), especially since the State did not correct the court when it used the same language in its initial denial of Dukes' request for immunity. Regardless, the district court's finding is supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.

 At its core, the State's argument is not so much a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's finding as it is an effort to undermine to the court's credibility assessments and weighing of Dukes' testimony against the State's assertions that Dukes, not Berryman, was the initial aggressor in the confrontation. In its brief, the State urges several reasons why the court should not have credited Dukes' account of the events. But it is not our role on appeal to second-guess credibility determinations. Instead, we must determine whether relevant and legal evidence in the record supports the district court's factual findings.

Because substantial evidence supported the district court's finding, the COA affirmed the dismissal.

[Update: the state filed a PR on March 4, 2021.]