• Dec 29, 2018
  • KSNW TV
  • -
  • by Jasmine Haynes

WICHITA – Wichita police say a 16-year-old robbery suspect died after being shot by an armed citizen during a robbery at a south Wichita convenience store on Friday.

It happened around 2:45 p.m. the B&H Fast Trip on south Seneca.

Police say four males walked into the store and demanded money at gunpoint. A customer in the store was also robbed before pulling out his own firearm and shooting toward the suspects, killing the teen.

The other suspects fled the scene and police are still looking for them.

Employees at a nearby business that was open when the robbery took place said the situation was scary so close to home. Employees at the Fantastic Sams hair salon located right next door to the convenience store said all the commotion made for some frightening moments.

“First I was like what’s going on, then I heard lock the door, lock the door so I ran back there and I locked the door,” said Charlotte Ann, Fantastic Sams employee.

Charlotte Ann was busy working at the hair salon Friday when the B&H Fast Trip next door got robbed by four armed suspects.

“It was kinda scary though at first seeing all those cop cars kind of piling in,” said Ann. “Didn’t know what was going on just kind of worried about the people’s safety next door too. ”

A convenience store Ann says she and her coworkers visit often.

“We didn’t know them personally, but we know them as business partners kinda like we go get snacks over there like what if one of us was over there that’s just kind of terrifying,” said Ann.

Police say an armed 42-year-old male customer fired several shots at the four suspects hitting the teen. The 16-year-old suspect later died.

Under Kansas law a person is justified in standing their ground if the person believes deadly force is needed to prevent death or harm to themselves or someone else.

“If a person is justified in using force in that fashion the person under Kansas law is immune from prosecution,” said attorney Dan Monnat.

“That’s just kind of something scary, you don’t picture something like that actually happening until you actually see it happen,” said Ann.

The investigation is still ongoing. If you have information, you are asked to call crime stoppers at 267-2111.

See full interview at KSN.com

  • Dec 19, 2018
  • KSNW TV
  • -
  • by John Asebes

WICHITA, Kan. – There is an old saying, what’s mine is yours.

“It is super frustrating that somebody had the audacity to steal from you,” says Danny Mason. “Coming home and realizing that something is gone.”

That saying does not apply here.

“It was super violating,” says Mason.

“It is easy to understand the property owner’s frustration,” says defense attorney Dan Monnat.

Two years ago, a Porch Pirate struck Mason and stole his projector screen.

“It is not funny, but it was almost comical seeing this idiot carrying this giant package and putting it in his little car,” says Mason.

People like Mason are getting tired of this. By now, you have probably heard of people putting cat litter in a package, waiting for a thief to steal a nasty prize. Something else that has popped up on social media is a glitter bomb. A device created by an Ex-NASA engineer who had a package stolen from him. The package explodes with glitter to shame the victim.

“I love it,” Mason says. “I think everyone should do it.”

“Property owners are too angry, too biased, and too invested to fairly mete out how much punishment is due the thief or trespassers,” says Monnat.

What if the thief gets hurt? What if they wreck their car after opening the glitter bomb?

“Imagine the same thing but now the thief collides with a small child riding his or her bicycle and kills the child?” Monnat asks.

Monnat says depending on what happens, you could face an endangerment charge which carries up to a year in jail and $2,500 fine. Worst case? An aggravated reckless battery charge. A level 5 charge with no criminal history carries 31, 32 or 34 months in prison. A level 8 charge with no criminal history carries 7, 8 or 9 months in prison.

“I could not imagine very many judges siding with the thief,” says Mason.

“Who gets hurt?” asks Monnat. “How badly do they get hurt?”

Monnat has some strong advice, don’t be the person who finds out.

“Let us leave it to the law,” he says.

See the full story at KSN.com

  • Dec 11, 2018
  • KSNW TV
  • -
  • by Craig Andres

WICHITA – In 2008, Elgin Robinson was convicted of capital murder of his girlfriend, 14-year-old Chelsea Brooks.

Brooks was nine months pregnant when her body was discovered in a shallow grave in Butler County.

At issue in the case is Brady/Giglio disclosure. It refers to a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland; Giglio v. United States. It requires the disclosure of information that could potentially compromise the testimony or evidence from the prosecution. It typically includes information that could impeach a witness, including law enforcement, or disclose some sort of a conviction or dishonesty in their past.

In Robinson’s case, attorneys are asking specifically if Detective Tim Relph was on a Brady/Giglio list at the time he testified in the Robinson murder case. In court proceedings today, it was not revealed if Det. Relph was ever on such a list. That is the issue that Robinson’s attorneys are asking to find out.

“Was detective Relph on Brady Giglio list at the time of Mr. Robinson’s trial?” asked Appellate Attorney Kristen Patty on Tuesday to Kansas Supreme Court justices.

Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett tried the Robinson case. He would not specifically talk about this case, but said he’s not surprised by a convicted murderer asking for new evidence.

“They’ve got a lot of time on their hands, and it’s not infrequent when we have people that are fairly litigious sitting in prison because they frankly don’t have much else to do,” said Bennett. “And so they will look for anything they can to breathe new life into their cases.”

Legal analyst and Wichita defense attorney Dan Monnat says there are many issues to be considered in a request like Robinson’s but, he says it’s an interesting legal question.

“If in this case law enforcement or the prosecution had evidence about police misconduct or the motivations for which witnesses might lie, or evidence that contradicted other prosecution witnesses and they failed to turn it over to the defense, that was a constitutional violation and Mr. Robinson could get a new trial,” said Monnat. “Brady/Giglio material has been litigated so much that it’s pretty well accepted that if Brady/Giglio material is discovered as new evidence post-trial, either the accused could win his or her appeal or obtain post-conviction relief.”

The Supreme Court justices asked questions for about a half hour of both the State and Patty. Justices are expected to have an answer in 60 to 90 days.