Supreme Court files decision in appeal

TOPEKA—The Supreme Court today ordered the case of a Johnson County defendant convicted of first-degree murder in a 1974 cold case involving the slaying of a 13-year-old girl returned to the district court for a determination of whether additional defense evidence should have been permitted after the jury began deliberations.

The interim Supreme Court decision came in the appeal of State v. John H. Horton, No. 101,054, who was convicted following a second trial that was conducted after his initial conviction was reversed on unrelated grounds.

The Supreme Court is retaining jurisdiction of Horton's appeal, but directed the district court to determine the "narrow issue" of whether the court should have reopened the presentation of evidence to allow the jury to hear evidence relating to the recording of a telephone conversation between a fellow inmate and the inmate's mother regarding his motivation for testifying against Horton at the second trial.

Justice Eric S. Rosen said in the Supreme Court's unanimous decision the defendant asserts in essence that the telephone conversation between the inmate, Sergio Castillo-Contreras, and his mother was "that a guard was recruiting Castillo-Contreras to testify because of some unspecified problem" with another inmate witness who testified that Horton also had told him that he had killed a girl under circumstances conforming to the state's theory of the case.

The Court said in today's decision that after the presentation of evidence and closing arguments and after the jury began deliberations, Horton's attorney asked that deliberations be suspended for two days in order to give the defense time to translate and analyze a recorded telephone call between inmate Castillo-Contreras and his mother. The trial court, however, denied the request on the belief that he had no discretion to reopen the evidentiary portion of the case, something the Supreme Court ruled today is contrary to numerous previous Kansas appellate court decisions dating back as far as 1875.

"The district court abused its discretion in refusing to hear and weigh evidence relating to the admissibility of the recorded telephone conversation and the possible impeachment of the witness," Justice Rosen wrote. "The analysis does not, however, end here. In general, if the district court abuses its discretion, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating resulting prejudice that warrants reversal," he said.

Once the trial judge concludes its determination of whether the case should have been reopened to allow the jury to hear evidence relating to the recording of the telephone conversation and any rebuttal evidence offered by the state, the case is to be returned to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.