Volume 253 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — <italic>Right to Counsel — Effective Assistance</italic> <italic>of Counsel — Self-representation.</italic> The Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the right to effective assistance of counsel and the right to conduct one's own defense. 2. SAME — <italic>Right to Counsel — Indigent Defendant Does Not Have</italic> <italic>Right to Choose Counsel.</italic> An indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to counsel of his or her own choice. 3. SAME — <italic>Right to Counsel — Appointment of Substitute Counsel —</italic> <italic>Trial Court Discretion.</italic> Generally, the decision whether to appoint new counsel is a matter left to the trial court's discretion. 4. SAME — <italic>Right to Counsel — Appointment of Substitute Counsel.</italic> Irreconcilable conflict between a defendant and his attorney may, under certain circumstances, require the appointment of substitute counsel in order to protect a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. 5. SAME — <italic>Self-representation — Trial Court Discretion if Right</italic> <italic>to Self-representation Asserted after Trial Commences.</italic> Although a defendant has a right to self-representation, that right is unqualified only if it is asserted before trial. If this right is asserted after trial commences, a decision to grant or deny self-representation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. 6. SAME — <italic>Self-representation — Trial Court Discretion if Right</italic> <italic>to Self-representation Asserted after Trial Commences —</italic> <italic>Considerations of Trial Court.</italic> In deciding whether to grant or deny self-representation to a criminal defendant after trial has commenced, the trial court should balance the alleged prejudice to the defendant with any disruption of the proceedings, inconvenience and delay, and possible confusion of the jury; the court should also consider the reason for the request and the quality of counsel's representation. 7. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Defendant's Constitutional Right to Be Present</italic> <italic>at Every Stage of Trial — Waiver of Right.</italic> A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be present at every stage of trial. A defendant can waive that right, however, and a defendant's voluntary absence after trial has commenced may be deemed a waiver of the right to be present. 8. SAME — <italic>Single Trial for Separate But Similar Charges —</italic> <italic>Evidence Admissible Independent of K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-455</cross_reference>.</italic> Where separate but similar criminal charges are tried together, evidence material to each crime is admissible independent of K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-455</cross_reference>. Thus, a limiting instruction generally is not required.<page_number>Page 496</page_number> 9. SAME — <italic>Complaint — Charging of Two or More Crimes in Same</italic> <italic>Complaint.</italic> Two or more crimes may be charged in the same complaint in a separate count for each crime if the crimes charged are of the same or similar character. K.S.A. <cross_reference>22-3202</cross_reference>(1). 10. SAME — <italic>Single Trial for Separate But Similar Charges — Trial</italic> <italic>Court Discretion — Appellate Review.</italic> Whether a defendant will be tried on all separate charges in a single trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion. 11. APPEAL AND ERROR — <italic>Trial Court's Refusal to Sever Charges in</italic> <italic>Criminal Trial — Appellate Review.</italic> Appellate courts have declined to find error when a trial court refused to sever charges that were sufficiently similar such that evidence of one would be admissible under K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-455</cross_reference> in the trial of the other and no prejudice would result to the defendant. 12. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Sentencing — Hard 40 Sentence Enhancement —</italic> <italic>Limited Precedential Value of Death Penalty Cases.</italic> Death penalty cases are of limited precedential value in evaluating the propriety of factors in hard 40 sentence enhancement cases. 13. SAME — <italic>Premeditated Murder — Hard 40 Sentence — Aggravating</italic> <italic>Factors — Statute Construed.</italic> K.S.A. 1992 Supp. <cross_reference>21-4625</cross_reference>(3) and (5) are not expressly limited to cases involving murder for hire or those in which the victim was about to apprehend the defendant. 14. SAME — <italic>Premeditated Murder — Hard 40 Sentence — Aggravating</italic> <italic>Factors — Constitutionality of Factor That Crime Committed in</italic> <italic>"Especially Heinous, Atrocious, or Cruel Manner."</italic> K.S.A. 1992 Supp. <cross_reference>21-4625</cross_reference>(6), which identifies as an aggravating factor that the defendant committed the crime in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner, is not unconstitutionally vague.