When the Victim Speaks: Admitting Statements Made by a Murder Victim

State v. Bey, No. 127,537, (Kan. Mar. 13, 2026).

Staff Editor Sophia Zheng

April 6, 2026

Issue: Did the district court err in admitting Sprague’s out-of-court statement that “if she ever died, [Bey] would be the one to kill her” under the necessity exception outlined in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460?

Answer: No.  The district court properly admitted Sprague’s out-of-court statements under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460.

Facts: Melinda Sprague’s body was discovered in the trunk of her car two days after her disappearance. A jury later convicted her boyfriend, Ahmad K. Bey, of first-degree premeditated murder.  During the trial, the State heavily relied on other witnesses’ testimony about Sprague’s statements prior to her murder, including statements that Bey was abusing her and had threatened to kill her.  On appeal, Bey argues that her statement that “if she ever died, [Bey] would be the one to kill her” does not meet the necessity exception because Sprague was not reporting something she had perceived. 

Discussion: To satisfy the necessity exception, the Court must find that the statement was made “at a time when the matter had been recently perceived by the declarant and while the declarant's recollection was clear.”[1]  The Court clarified that the statute does not limit the statement’s content solely to observed facts.  It cited State v. Owens, in which the deceased’s statement that the defendant was “getting on [her] nerves” met the necessity exception because it explained her state of mind after seeing text messages from the defendant.  The Court also referenced State v. Evans, in which it admitted the deceased’s statement that “[i]f there’s ever a time that I’m not around here anymore, the bitch shot and killed me” under the necessity exception.  Here, Sprange’s statement that “if she ever died, [Bey] would be the one to kill her” satisfies the necessity exception as it reflects her mental state after perceiving Bey’s threats and violence. The evidence supported the district court’s finding that Sprague made the statements “when the matter was recently perceived and her memory of it was clear.”

Key Authorities: 

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460

State v. Owens, 496 P.3d 902 (Kan. 2021); State v. Evans, 492 P.3d 418 (Kan. 2021).

[1] Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460(d)(3).