This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Either Theel or Ventris (D) killed Hicks with shots from a .38-caliber revolver. Both Theel and D drove off in Hicks’s truck with approximately $300 of his money and his cell phone. Officers arrested D and Theel and charged them with murder and aggravated robbery. The State dropped the murder charge against Theel in exchange for her guilty plea to the robbery charge and her testimony identifying D as the shooter. Officers planted an informant in D's holding cell, instructing him to “keep [his] ear open and listen” for incriminating statements. According to the informant, in response to his statement that D appeared to have “something more serious weighing in on his mind,” D divulged that “he’d shot this man in his head and in his chest” and taken “his keys, his wallet, about $350.00, and … a vehicle.” At trial, D took the stand and blamed the robbery and shooting entirely on Theel. P called the informant to impeach D. D objected. Despite the Sixth Amendment violation by P, the trial court allowed the informant’s impeachment testimony but instructed the jury to “consider with caution” all testimony given in exchange for benefits from the State. The jury ultimately acquitted D of felony murder and misdemeanor theft but returned a guilty verdict on the aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery counts. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that “once a criminal prosecution has commenced, the defendant’s statements made to an undercover informant surreptitiously acting as an agent for the State are not admissible at trial for any reason, including the impeachment of the defendant’s testimony.”

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.