A Tale of Two Standards: Self-Defense Testimony Cannot be Contradicted with Preliminary Evidence

State v. Riggins, No. 126,841, 2025 WL 2630031, (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).

Staff Editor Jeremey Beckner

September 27, 2025

Issue: May district courts rely on testimony from preliminary hearings to decide immunity under Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-5231?

Answer: No. If a defendant requests an immunity hearing, the district court can only resolve the issue of immunity with either stipulated facts or evidence offered at the immunity hearing.

Facts: Following a preliminary hearing, but before trial, defendant Riggins filed a motion with the district court for a declaration of immunity under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231[1]. The court held an evidentiary hearing, and although the state objected to the timeliness of the motion, they did not bring any witnesses to contradict Riggins’ testimony. The district court, having no other evidence, relied on testimony from the preliminary hearing to conclude that Riggins was not statutorily immune, and Riggins appealed.

Discussion: When a defendant asserts immunity under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231, the district court must perform its “gatekeeping function” and determine if the defendant can be prosecuted for their use of force. The court’s decision must be made either on stipulated facts or on evidence “received at a hearing pursuant to the rules of evidence.”[2] Riggins argued that even though the State failed to carry its burden at the immunity hearing, the court could not turn around and rely on evidence from the preliminary hearing.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Riggins because the hearings use differing evidentiary standards. At preliminary hearings, the district court is more deferential to evidence from the State. At immunity hearings, however, the court must “weigh the evidence before it without deference to the State.”[3] Accordingly, Riggins’ sentence was vacated, as the district court erred in using preliminary hearing testimony, and the State did not present any evidence at the immunity hearing.

Key Authorities: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5231, State v. Hardy, 390 P.3d 30 (2017) (reasoning that that the self-defense statute imposed a “gatekeeping duty” on the district court); State v. Dailey, 497 P.3d 1153 (2021) (“We will not allow the State a second bite at the apple based on the district court's error.... It had its chance to support [its] request; if it failed, then it failed.”).
 

[1]State v. Riggins, No. 126,841, 2025 WL 2630031, at *2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025)

[2]Id. at *6 (citing State v. Hardy, 305 Kan. 1001, 1012 (2017)).

[3]Id. at *7.