Court: Supreme Court of Kansas; April 29, 2011; Kansas; State Supreme Court
In the case of State of Kansas v. Asa Adams, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Adams' conviction for first-degree felony murder, stemming from the death of her 1-year-old daughter, Shymire, on May 16, 2007. Adams was home alone with her children when she called 911 for Shymire, who was later found to have suffered severe head trauma, burns, and other injuries. Medical evidence indicated Shymire died from traumatic brain injury complicated by her burns, with prosecution arguing that Adams was the only person capable of inflicting these injuries.
Adams claimed her defense was based on the injuries being accidental and exacerbated by her attempts to resuscitate Shymire, while the State presented witnesses including medical professionals and emergency responders. Key testimony came from paramedic Chad Maugans, who described Shymire's condition upon arrival, noting burns, lack of consciousness, and potential signs of asphyxiation. Maugans observed Adams appearing stunned and in shock during the emergency response.
Adams raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and errors made by the district judge regarding jury instructions. However, the court upheld the conviction, concluding that the evidence presented justified the jury's findings and did not warrant a new trial.
Sherri Rene Brown, Maugans' partner, testified that her attempts to gather information from Adams at the scene were unsuccessful. Josh Mullen from the Wichita Fire Department confirmed he responded to Adams' 911 call, finding Shymire on the couch with severe burns and a low level of consciousness. Officer Ian Wolfe, who spoke to Adams shortly after she arrived at the hospital, reported that Adams described an incident where Shymire had a seizure while alone in the bathtub, which led to her being moved to the couch. Adams suggested Shymire's leg injuries were due to a skin condition, not burns. Officer Naomi Arnold testified about the conditions in Adams' apartment, noting a sauna-like atmosphere in the bathroom and hot water in the tub. Kent Bauman, a police officer, found no bath towels or standing water in the bathroom when he arrived around 8 p.m., and measured the bathtub water temperature at 138 degrees. Apartment manager Frank Johnson observed Adams’ common-law husband, Robert Turner, leaving on a bicycle at approximately 12:30 p.m. on May 16, and noted multiple calls from Adams instructing him to prevent police entry to her apartment. Dr. Jonathan Dort, who treated Shymire in the emergency room, reported her poor responsiveness and the presence of small brain hemorrhages and aspiration evidence. He found the combination of Shymire's injuries inconsistent with accidental causes. Pediatrician Dr. Katherine Melhorn, specializing in child abuse evaluations, concluded that Shymire did not have a seizure disorder based on her medical history.
Melhorn determined that Shymire's injuries were not the result of a brief seizure and found no evidence of preexisting health issues. She identified the lower leg and foot injuries as inflicted immersion burns and noted bruises on Shymire's legs and torso due to blunt force trauma, including three bruises behind her right ear. A bruise and abrasion on her forehead were likely also caused by blunt force trauma. Melhorn attributed Shymire's internal brain damage to a closed head injury from blunt force trauma. Although she believed the leg burns might have contributed to Shymire's death, the primary cause was severe swelling of the brain tissue. On cross-examination, Melhorn acknowledged her conclusions did not exclude the possibility of a seizure occurring on May 16, 2007. On redirect, she expressed uncertainty about a singular cause for all injuries but suggested a seizure could follow a brain injury.
Dr. William Waswick, who treated Shymire upon her hospital arrival, testified that she had second- and third-degree burns which would have been very painful but would not have solely caused her low-consciousness state. He noted that the burns were consistent with forced immersion rather than accidental, as there were no splash marks on her body. Waswick indicated that burns could result from three to five seconds of immersion, with minor burns on her chest and cheek suggesting she might have been pulled from the tub.
Jaime Oeberst, the chief medical examiner, concluded Shymire’s death resulted from complications of blunt force trauma and burns, ruling the manner of death as homicide. He noted that petechial hemorrhages might have stemmed from distressed breathing and stated that blunt force trauma would visibly affect consciousness.
Detective Clay Germany interviewed Adams at the hospital and later at the Exploited and Missing Children Unit (EMCU) office, while Detective William Alexander Riddle reported Shymire had brain bleeding. Adams, during interviews, denied hitting Shymire but claimed a wall mirror had fallen on her head.
Adams, a 19-year-old stay-at-home mother, described her life in Wichita as financially difficult and acknowledged experiencing physical, emotional, and mental abuse from her husband, Turner.
On May 16, 2007, Adams provided testimony regarding an incident involving her children. She stated that her husband left for work around noon, leaving her alone with the children, including an infant named Righteous, who was unusually fussy. Operating on minimal sleep, Adams consumed Ecstasy, marijuana, Lortabs, and cocaine to cope with her situation.
She described her routine of bathing the children, first placing Righteous in a crib after his bath, then beginning to bathe her other child, Shymire. Distracted by Righteous' crying, she failed to bring necessary items into the bathroom and, after hearing a thud from the bathroom, returned to find Shymire had exited the tub. Adams attempted to comfort Righteous before returning Shymire to the bath, where she noted the water was hotter than when she initially placed her there. Adams observed that Shymire appeared to be in distress and subsequently experienced a fall that resulted in her head potentially hitting the bathtub.
After noticing Shymire was unresponsive and had scalded feet, Adams attempted CPR without formal training, describing her efforts as thrusts to Shymire's abdomen before calling 911. She admitted to being in shock upon the arrival of emergency personnel and did not disclose Shymire's burns or her drug use during police interviews due to fear of losing custody of her children.
Adams claimed Shymire could turn the tub faucets, though she had never seen her do it. During cross-examination, Adams explained that investigators found no drugs in her apartment because she had used them and cleaned up. She could not recall specific actions, like shutting the bathroom door or pulling the bathtub stopper. Discrepancies arose between her testimony and the police interview recordings, particularly regarding her claims about having items in the bathroom and the behavior of Righteous during the emergency response. Ultimately, she acknowledged that Shymire had no burns other than those on her lower legs and feet.
The witness testified that she did not intend to harm Shymire during abdomen thrusts and did not strike her in the head or thigh. The district judge provided the jury with a modified instruction on the weight and credibility of witness testimony, including expert testimony. This instruction emphasized that jurors should consider expert opinions alongside all other evidence and assess their weight based on the same criteria as other testimonies. The defense objected to this modification, but the judge overruled the objection, deeming the instruction beneficial to the jury.
During deliberations, the jury inquired about the potential effects of a blow to the back of the head, specifically regarding instant incapacitation. The judge reminded the jury that they were the triers of fact and could request a read-back of relevant testimony. Dr. Oeberst, an expert witness, testified that head trauma could cause brain swelling rapidly, leading to noticeable changes in consciousness but did not provide a specific timeline.
After deliberations, the prosecutor noted that the jury's questions had been discussed with both counsel, and a typewritten response had been agreed upon and signed by all parties. Defense counsel confirmed his agreement with the prosecutor's account regarding the jury questions. There is no record indicating whether the defendant, Ms. Adams, was present during these discussions.
Following her conviction, Adams wrote to the district judge, expressing dissatisfaction with her representation and requesting a new attorney. She claimed that important facts were overlooked in her case and maintained her innocence.
The judge interpreted Adams' letter as a request for new counsel and a motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He appointed new counsel and held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. During the hearing, Adams claimed her trial counsel failed to present critical evidence, including Battered Woman's Syndrome and character witnesses, and did not subpoena her husband to testify about her abuse. Adams expressed dissatisfaction with her counsel's communication and stated she felt pressured to testify. She noted that important documents indicating Shymire was a child in need of care (CINC) were not presented, which she believed could have absolved her of first-degree murder charges. Adams also mentioned that she could have provided photographs demonstrating her positive relationships with her children and criticized her counsel for not filing a motion to suppress her police statements.
On cross-examination, Adams clarified she was not accusing her husband of killing Shymire and acknowledged her rocky relationship with him. She disclosed past mental health treatment at age 12 but struggled to recall details and identified a mental disability affecting her memory. Trial counsel Kenneth Newton testified about his experience and explained that a pediatrician's review of Shymire's medical records indicated a time gap that excluded her husband as a suspect. Newton did not call the pediatrician as a witness since he could not confidently support a defense theory of accidental injury. He opted not to call Adams’ husband due to concerns about self-incrimination and had discussions with Adams about the potential risks of calling her mother as a witness. Newton stated he was unaware of Adams’ mental disability and did not question her competency to stand trial.
Newton did not introduce photographs of Adams with her children or medical records related to Shymire's prior treatment, believing the latter would negatively impact Adams' case by depicting her as a neglectful mother. He felt he had adequately discussed the case with Adams and clarified that her testimony was essential for her story to be heard. The district judge denied Adams' motion for a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, referencing Strickland v. Washington and Chamberlain v. State. Adams received a life sentence with the possibility of parole in 20 years.
Concerning jury deliberations, Adams contended that the judge made procedural and substantive errors by providing a written summary of a witness's testimony instead of a readback. The standard for reviewing such responses is abuse of discretion. However, the State argued that Adams invited this error by not objecting to the judge's approach. K.S.A. 22-3420(3) mandates the defendant's presence during discussions about jury questions, and if this is not documented, a violation of the defendant's rights is presumed. The court noted that the invited error doctrine does not apply to violations of the right to be present. Despite the unclear record, it indicated that Adams likely participated in a discussion about the jury's inquiry, aligning her situation with previous case law.
In Bruce, the court applied the invited error doctrine to reject the defendant's appeal regarding the trial court's response to a jury question, noting that the defense counsel had agreed to the response crafted in collaboration with the prosecution. The defendant's participation in formulating the specific language precluded any argument of error on appeal. Similarly, in State v. Cramer, the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled that the defendant could not contest the trial court's jury response since defense counsel had no objection to the proposed standard used in the response.
The document advises that future practices should involve addressing jury questions in open court to ensure proper recording of all parties' presence. It also cautions against judges summarizing testimony, as it may lead to errors, though in this case, any potential error was invited by the defendant.
Additionally, the defendant, Adams, contested the trial judge's witness credibility instruction, which diverged from the prescribed pattern instruction by including language regarding expert witnesses. Although this deviation was noted, it was not deemed automatically detrimental, as modifications are permissible based on case specifics. The court acknowledged a trend against special emphasis on witness credibility, especially for experts, supporting the argument that the instruction unduly highlighted the testimony of four expert witnesses. The court ultimately concluded that the instruction aimed to mitigate the weight of the expert testimony rather than inflate it.
In cases where the defendant is a nonexpert and their sole witness, the use of a hybrid jury instruction is permissible and may even be beneficial. Legal standards dictate that jury instructions should be evaluated as a whole to ensure they accurately convey the law without misleading the jury. Adams' claim regarding the jury instruction fails because it correctly represented Kansas law, allowing the jury to weigh expert testimony alongside all witness accounts. The instruction, while deviating from standard practices, was deemed justifiable and not misleading, serving to caution the jury about expert influence.
Adams also argued that the district judge erred in denying her motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Such claims involve mixed questions of law and fact that undergo de novo review. The court assesses whether the district judge’s factual findings are backed by substantial evidence and whether those findings support the legal conclusions made. To prove reversible error, Adams must satisfy the two-pronged Strickland test, which requires demonstrating that counsel made significant errors undermining the right to effective assistance and that such deficiencies prejudiced her case. The first prong involves showing that counsel’s performance did not meet an objective standard of reasonableness, with courts maintaining a strong presumption of competence in attorney representation. Strategic choices by counsel are largely protected unless they result from inadequate investigation, which must still be justified by reasonable professional judgments.
A defendant must prove that alleged deficiencies in legal representation were not strategic decisions. The second prong of the Strickland test requires demonstrating a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's errors, the outcome would have been different; this probability must undermine confidence in the result. In Adams' case, testimony during the evidentiary hearing showed that her trial counsel, Newton, provided competent representation, making strategic choices that ultimately served Adams' interests. The district judge found substantial evidence supporting this conclusion. Additionally, even if there were perceived weaknesses in Newton's performance, the overwhelming strength of the State's case and the severity of Shymire's injuries indicated no prejudice against Adams. Consequently, Adams' claims of error are rejected, and her conviction for first-degree felony murder is affirmed.
