Kansas Supreme Court upholds aggravated battery conviction

The Kansas Supreme Court today upheld a Wyandotte County District Court conviction in an aggravated battery case.

Michael Staten had been convicted of one count of aggravated battery. He appealed the case to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction. Then he appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court, which today affirmed the conviction.

According to court documents, Staten was found guilty of aggravated battery against a woman with whom he shared an apartment in Wyandotte County. The beating occurred July 22, 2011. The victim was severely injured and in the hospital for four days, and she had a punctured lung, according to court documents.

Staten claimed self-defense in the case. He argued that he hit her in order to protect himself, and he claimed that he had to hit her several times, court documents stated. However, his story and the woman’s story did not agree. She claimed he began hitting her, threatened to kill her, and hit her with a stick, according to court documents. Witnesses said they saw him hitting her after she was on the ground and incapable of fighting back, according to court documents.

Staten was sentenced to 12.8 years and was ordered to pay $27,000 in restitution, court documents stated.

In his appeal, Staten claimed the jury was not properly instructed as to the burden of proof and who bore it.

“Instructions are clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that there is a real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict in the absence of the error,” the Kansas Supreme Court stated today.

The Kansas Supreme Court also threw out the defendant’s claim that the verdict should be overturned because of comments made by the prosecutor. The court today said the comments did not rise to the level of reversible misconduct. “The evidence was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the error carried little weight,” the court stated.

The defendant also appealed, stating that because he asked for a new attorney and his motion was denied, that the trial court abused its discretion. The Kansas Supreme Court stated that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that replacing [the attorney] was not necessary to protect Staten’s right to a fair trial.”