State of Kansas v. Kongkeo Koulaboud

Liberal, Kansas criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with r attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.<br>
<br>
* * * <br>
<br>
This case arose from an incident which occurred on December 8, 2019. At the time, Koulaboud was living in a trailer house located in Jose Chavez' backyard. While Chavez and a friend, Frank Mattich, were working outside on Chavez' car, Koulaboud came out onto the porch and started yelling at Chavez. Koulaboud asked who put oil on his clothing in the laundry, noting some had gotten on his shirt. He waved a machete and said he was going to kill Chavez, repeating this threat two or three times. Chavez testified that he became afraid of Koulaboud due to this behavior, so he asked Mattich to call the police. But Mattich testified that Chavez did not ask him to call the police but instead Mattich did so on his own once he saw Chavez on the ground.<br>
<br>
At some point, Koulaboud went back inside the house and yelled at Chavez to come inside and see that someone had poisoned his clothes. After Chavez did not follow Koulaboud into the house, Koulaboud came back outside and started hitting Chavez with a stick "very hard," telling Chavez he was going to kill him. Chavez tried to run away, but Koulaboud hit him and he fell. Chavez said everything happened very fast, so he was not sure if he fell onto his side or back.<br>
<br>
Mattich saw Koulaboud hitting Chavez while Chavez was on the ground, trying to protect his head. At some point the stick disappeared and Mattich saw Koulaboud put his hand inside his jacket and pull out a hammer. Mattich testified he saw Koulaboud swing the hammer and hit Chavez twice in the right knee. Koulaboud then tried to hit Chavez in the head. Mattich said Chavez was on the ground protecting his head with his arms and crying when Koulaboud was swinging the hammer at his head. Chavez said Koulaboud was angry "like a demon" and screaming so much that Chavez could not understand him. One of the investigating officers testified Mattich told the officer that Koulaboud hit Chavez with the hammer, but the officer said Chavez did not believe he was hit with the hammer. However Chavez claimed at trial he was hit with the hammer and did not remember telling the officer he was not.<br>
<br>
Mattich said the hammer flew out of Koulaboud's hand when he tried to hit Chavez in the head. Chavez did not see when Koulaboud lost the hammer but said Koulaboud suddenly just took off running when the police arrived. Mattich followed him, and law enforcement apprehended Koulaboud near the scene. <br>
<br>
* * *<br>
<br>
Legal issue Does a prosecutor's argument using a different assault theory than what was charged constitute reversible error in a criminal case?<br>
Headnote<br>
<br>
CRIMINAL LAW. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. The appeal concerns the sufficiency of evidence for an aggravated assault conviction where the defendant was accused of utilizing a deadly weapon, with the court examining the adequacy of circumstantial evidence to establish the victim's apprehension of harm and whether the objects used (a hammer and a stick) constituted deadly weapons under the aggravated assault statute.<br>
<br>
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PROSECUTORIAL ERROR. The case addresses prosecutorial error where the prosecution deviated from the original charges during trial, leading to a reversal of the aggravated assault conviction due to the prosecution's reliance on a theory that was not presented in the charging documents.<br>
<br>
CRIMINAL LAW. CONTINUANCE DENIAL. The court examined whether the denial of a motion for a continuance was proper, concluding that the defendant did not demonstrate the materiality of the delayed discovery to his guilt and thus failed to justify the need for additional time.<br>
<br>
CRIMINAL LAW. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION. The appeal questions the district court's refusal to issue a voluntary intoxication instruction as a defense to attempted second-degree murder, with the court finding no evidence sufficient to demonstrate that intoxication impaired the defendant's intent to carry out the charged offense.<br>
<br>
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. The court discussed errors in jury instructions regarding the element of a deadly weapon in an aggravated assault charge, suggesting conformity with standard instructions for any retrial, emphasizing the need for clarity in articulating the specific use of a deadly weapon as alleged in the charges.<br>
<br>
Key Phrases Attempted second-degree murder. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Voluntary intoxication instruction. Prosecutorial error. Sufficient evidence.

The Defendant was found guilty.<br>
<br>
Affirmed