Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial statements and
prohibits the admission of such statements by a witness who
does not appear at trial, unless the witness is unavailable
to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for
certificate of analysis showing the results of a forensic
examination that has been performed on substances seized by
police is testimonial. Because the certificate is
testimonial, the prosecution cannot introduce the certificate
without presenting it through the in-court testimony of a
witness who can swear to the truth of the statements
contained in the certificate.
Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to
introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a
testimonial certification, created to prove a fact at a
criminal trial, through the in-court testimony of an analyst
who did not sign the certification or personally perform or
observe the performance of the test reported in the
Harmless error review applies to issues pertaining to the
Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. An appellate
court employs a de novo review of the entire record when
determining whether a fundamental failure in a trial is
harmless error is one that did not affect a party's
substantial rights, meaning it will not or did not affect a
trial's outcome. When an error infringes upon a
party's federal constitutional right, a court will
declare the error harmless only where the party benefiting
from the error persuades the court beyond a reasonable doubt
that the error complained of will not or did not affect the
outcome of the trial in light of the entire record,
i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that
the error affected the verdict.
appellate court reviews a trial court's determination
regarding whether hearsay is admissible under a statutory
exception for an abuse of discretion.
Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action (1) is
arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, i.e., if no
reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the
trial court; (2) is based on an error of law, i.e.,
if the discretion is guided by an erroneous legal conclusion;
or (3) is based on an error of fact, i.e., if
substantial competent evidence does not support a factual
finding on which a prerequisite conclusion of law or the
exercise of discretion is based.
hearsay is admitted under the coconspirator exception, it
must satisfy three standards: (1) the out-of-court statement
about which the person will testify must have been made by
one of the coconspirators; (2) the statement of the
coconspirator must have been made while the conspiracy was in
progress; and (3) the statement must be relevant to the plan
or its subject matter.
Generally, litigants and their counsel bear the
responsibility for objecting to inadequate findings of fact
and conclusions of law in order to give the trial court the
opportunity to correct such inadequacies, and, when there is
no objection, omissions in findings are not considered on
When there is no objection to a trial court's findings,
an appellate court presumes that the trial court found all
facts necessary to support its judgment.
Statements by coconspirators are not testimonial and do not
implicate the Confrontation Clause.
from Sedgwick District Court; Bruce C. Brown, judge.
Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the
brief for appellant.
J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, argued the cause,
and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
MICHAEL J. MALONE, SENIOR JUDGE 
A. Jones appeals his convictions of first-degree premeditated
murder, first-degree felony murder, and aggravated
kidnapping. This is a companion case to State v.
Sean, No. 114, 417, an appeal from convictions arising
out of the same series of events presented in this case.
Jones argues (1) his right to confront witnesses under the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was
violated when forensic testing results came into evidence
without Jones having the opportunity to cross-examine the
laboratory analyst who performed the tests; and (2) certain
hearsay statements were erroneously admitted by the trial
court. Because we conclude that any error on the part of the
trial court was harmless, we affirm.
and Procedural Background
January of 2013, Jason A. Jones worked at an automotive shop
owned by Dang Sean. Shawn Lindsey had been Sean's
business partner in the shop until sometime in 2012, and he
owed Sean money. On Friday, January 11, 2013, Sean directed
Anthony Garza to pick up Lindsey and bring him to the shop,
apparently to discuss the debt. Sean had met Garza a year
earlier when Garza sold him a computer. Since that meeting,
Garza had spent time at Sean's auto shop because
Garza's girlfriend worked there. Garza, accompanied by
his nephew Reuben Carrion, Jr., and his friend Aaron
Stricker, drove to Lindsey's home.
girlfriend, Chelsea Bernhard, was home with Lindsey when the
three men arrived. Bernhard testified that Lindsey talked
with Garza and then Lindsey told her that he had to go to
Sean's auto shop.
Jones, and three other shop employees-Will Coleman, Justin
Jones (Justin) and Phomphikak Phouthalaksa (Air)-were at the
shop when Garza and Lindsey arrived around 7 p.m. Sean and
Lindsey began discussing the debt. Shortly after their
conversation began, Sean began punching and kicking Lindsey
and knocked him to the floor.
the beating, Sean told Jones to take Lindsey, along with
Garza and Stricker, to look for Lindsey's truck. While
not entirely clear from the record, Sean may have wanted the
truck as some type of collateral for the debt. The men left
the shop, and Sean left shortly thereafter.
testified that while the men were driving in Jones' car
looking for the truck, he spoke to Justin on the phone, who
told him to zip-tie Lindsey and not let him go when they
returned to the shop. Coleman testified that when the men
returned to the shop, Jones was on his telephone and informed
the person on the other end of the call that the men still
did not have the truck. Coleman then heard Jones tell the
others to make sure Lindsey did not leave.
carrying a duffel bag, arrived back at the shop shortly after
the men had returned from looking for Lindsey's truck.
According to Coleman, Sean was also carrying a gun and a
syringe. Sean ordered someone to zip-tie Lindsey's hands
together. Coleman stated that someone then zip-tied
noticed that Justin was holding a bag of methamphetamine and
Jones was holding a spoon. He estimated that the bag
contained a quarter ounce of methamphetamine-35 times the
amount of a typical single dose. Garza heard Justin and Jones
discuss needing to find a torch to melt the methamphetamine.
Garza observed Jones pour the methamphetamine into the spoon
while Sean was holding a syringe and needle.
to Garza, Justin held Lindsey's right arm while Sean
injected Lindsey. Lindsey pleaded for them to stop and
promised to pay Sean back. After the injection, Air
approached with an electric fence, and Justin and Jones
wrapped the fence around Lindsey. Jones gave a car battery
starter to Air, who connected the battery to the fence but
did not turn it on.
approached Lindsey with a firearm and an air soft gun. Sean
began shooting Lindsey with pellets from the air soft gun,
and Garza testified that Lindsey began shaking violently.
Sean pointed the firearm at Lindsey and then shot pellets
from the air gun at the battery charger in a failed attempt
to turn it on. Garza eventually removed the fence.
he removed the fence, Garza heard someone say that Lindsey
was "almost gone" and "about to go." Sean
told Garza to cut the zip ties at Lindsey's feet so
Lindsey could walk to the truck because they were going to
take him to the hospital. Jones and Sean led Lindsey to a
black Silverado truck and loaded him in. After loading
Lindsey, Sean told Garza to "get the ...