[16] This court has characterized this form of manslaughter as the "lawful exercise of self-defense, but with excessive force." See State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 551, 486 P.3d 606 (2021); State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 976, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012). Under this theory,
But we conclude the district court judge did not commit clear error by not giving the instruction because we are not convinced the jury would have reached a different result had the judge given an instruction. See State v. Nunez , 313 Kan. 540, 55, 486 P.3d 606 (2021). The evidence about Arita's-Hurtado's state of mind when leaving the New Year's Eve party and the reasons given for having someone move Alfaro-Valleda's truck had de minimis meaning and were unlikely to sway a jury.
Appellate courts do not reweigh these evidentiary assessments. Accord State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 548, 486 P.3d 606 (2021) (noting that a district court is not required to make particularized findings on the record when ruling on an immunity motion as long as it is apparent that it used the correct legal framework).
This court does not apply the deduction automatically or mechanically, but considers it to be one factor, among many, when analyzing instructional issues for harmlessness." State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 541, 553, 486 P.3d 606 (2021).
Chandler relies on decisions discussing the use of excessive force during an otherwise justifiable use of force for support. See State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 551, 486 P.3d 606 (2021); State v. James, 309 Kan. 1280, 1304, 443 P.3d 1063 (2019). In Nunez, the defendant claimed he shot the victim-who he believed was trying to rob his house- only after the victim had held the defendant by the neck and was holding a knife to him.
Moreover, we again emphasize that the district court was not required to make particularized findings. See State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 548, 486 P.3d 606 (2021) (confirming that particularized findings are not required when ruling on an immunity motion). Generally, particularized findings are not required when the applicable statue does not call for such findings.
State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 551, 486 P.3d 606 (2021).
[Citations omitted.]" State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 553, 486 P.3d 606 (2021).
A jury instruction error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error affected the trial's outcome. State v. Nunez , 313 Kan. 540, 550, 486 P.3d 606 (2021).
A trial court is not required to make particularized findings on an immunity motion if it is apparent from the record that the trial court applied the appropriate legal standard in determining probable cause. State v. Nunez , 313 Kan. 540, 548, 486 P.3d 606 (2021). Here, the trial court applied the correct legal standard.