State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Austin Bryce Langley, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Per Curiam:

A jury convicted Austin Bryce Langley of attempted first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated battery in the Shawnee County District Court. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the premeditation element of his attempted first-degree murder conviction. He does not challenge his aggravated battery conviction. After review, we affirm Langley's convictions.

Factual and Procedural Background

In the early evening of July 2, 2020, Langley went out to dinner in Topeka, Kansas. After his meal, during which he had one margarita, Langley returned to his apartment and met one of his neighbors, whom Langley invited over to smoke marijuana in his apartment. After smoking, Langley left to run an errand. When he returned to his apartment, he could not find his marijuana and suspected his neighbor had stolen it while he left to run the errand. Langley became extremely angry because he does not “think it's right to steal,” and he called his father to help him calm down.

When Langley's father received his son's phone call that evening, he knew that his son was struggling mentally. Langley has paranoid schizophrenia and, at the time, had not been taking his prescribed medications because he could not afford them. Langley was then 40 years old and had been struggling with his mental health since his early teens. His symptoms include hallucinations, hearing voices, and extreme chronic anxiety.

Langley told his father that he was certain someone had broken into his apartment and taken $20 from him rather than the marijuana. His father described Langley as being “almost out of control” and “upset” over the theft. He told his father that “things had been going bad and he was just kind of at his wits end at that point.” While on the phone with his father, Langley yelled, “I'm going to kill somebody.” Langley's father hung up, called the police, and reported to them that Langley said he was going to kill someone.

Meanwhile, in Topeka that same evening around 7 p.m., Shawn Douglas and his wife were working at a fireworks stand in the parking lot of the Fairlawn Plaza shopping center. Douglas was working at the cash register. Langley entered the fireworks stand, approached Douglas, and asked him if they carried a specific type of firework. Douglas turned to show Langley where the requested firework was and then, without warning, Langley swung his arm and hit Douglas in the back—at least, that is what Douglas initially thought. Douglas pulled away from the suspected blow and then saw a knife in Langley's hand. Just as he did so, Langley stabbed Douglas a second time, this time under the arm.

Douglas then pushed Langley through the fencing that surrounded the tent and pulled out his firearm after he was able to create space between them. As he was backing away from Douglas, who is Black, Langley started yelling “God bless America” and “fuck you, niggers.” As Langley retreated, Douglas sat down on the ground, his wife called 911, and a friend applied pressure to his wounds.

Witnesses followed Langley as he retreated on foot. As they were passing through an apartment complex, Langley tossed the knife he used in the stabbing under a parked car and kept walking. The witnesses relayed Langley's location to law enforcement, who located him less than half a mile away from the scene of the stabbing and arrested him. Law enforcement found the knife, which was approximately four inches long, that was tossed under a vehicle and collected it as evidence.

At the law enforcement center, police interviewed Langley. During that interview, Langley said he was going to fight any charges against him by pleading not guilty, insanity, or diminished capacity. Langley told law enforcement that after his father hung up on him, he went and “stabbed that guy.” Langley then ended the interview, stating that he did not want to talk anymore.

After his arrest, Langley called his parents from jail. During those calls, he told his parents that he stabbed someone because he was “tired of this shit.” During a call, when referring to Douglas, Langley said, “He's not innocent. I'm sure he's not innocent.” Langley told his parents that he did not think Douglas died, but he did not know, and that he would not plead guilty to it.

Meanwhile, Douglas had been transported to the hospital via ambulance and received stitches to close the stab wounds. One of his wounds was in the center of his back, near his spine, and the other was on his side, just under his arm. Although Douglas was released from the hospital the same day, he was sore and had trouble breathing. He testified he was in pain for about a month after the stabbing. He returned to work at the fireworks stand the next day but had to spend more time sitting and could not do his normal duties. He explained that he could only sit and supervise the stand and that he was in “excruciating” pain while working.

The State charged Langley, in pertinent part, with one count of attempted first-degree premeditated murder, in violation of K.S.A. 21-5402(a)(1) and K.S.A. 21-5301, a level 1 person felony, and one count of aggravated battery, in violation of K.S.A. 21-5413(b)(1)(A), a level 4 person felony. The charges proceeded to a jury trial, at which several witnesses testified, including Langley's father and Langley in his own defense.

Langley testified that he had been taking his medication, just not as regularly as he was supposed to. He said in July 2020 he “was starting to feel funny in the head, you know, like a little bit crazier.” Langley testified that after he realized his marijuana was missing, he started to get really upset and “panicky,” and when he gets like that, he calls his dad, who helps him calm down. Langley testified that he called his dad but said that his dad hung up on him because he was too worked up. Langley said he called his dad back to vent but testified that he did not say he was “going to fucking kill somebody.” Instead, Langley testified that he said, “I'm about ready to kill somebody,” and that it was a “figure of speech” or an “exaggeration.”

Langley testified that his father hung up on him a second time, which did not minimize his “panicky” feelings. Langley said he saw his pocketknife on his coffee table and decided to put his pocketknife in his pocket before leaving his apartment because he “was thinking about opening up a can of whoop ass on somebody.” Langley said he left his apartment to find his neighbor and that he “was thinking about hurting somebody.” Langley then testified about how stealing in some countries will get your hand chopped off. He said, “I didn't take it that far, but I was going to stab something.”

Langley said after he could not find his neighbor, he ran to the parking lot where the fireworks stand in Fairlawn Plaza was located and then walked across the parking lot to the fireworks stand itself. Langley testified that he wanted to go back to jail because he felt like he did not fit in in Topeka, that he “wanted to see a miracle” by stabbing someone but the person being okay. Langley testified:

“And I intended to swing the knife into somebody's back, intending that he would walk away. I did not—it was a 50/50 chance I believed that he was going to walk away, that he wouldn't even be hurt. That it was going to be divine intervention because of my schizophrenia.”

Langley testified that he pulled the knife out of his pocket as he got closer to the fireworks stand. He said he walked up to Douglas and asked him about the specific type of firework because it popped into his head. Then, Langley admitted that he stabbed Douglas but said “I was not trying to kill him.”

The State requested the lesser included offense instruction for attempted second-degree intentional murder. Langley did not object to giving the lesser included instruction. The jury returned a guilty verdict as charged for attempted first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated battery.

Langley requested to proceed pro se at sentencing and filed a pro se motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to support the convictions. The State filed a response, arguing that a rational juror could find that Langley's actions amounted to attempted murder and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm or disfigurement.

At a motions hearing held on May 23, 2024, Langley asked the district court to acquit, stating that he learned his lesson, and he would get a taser and move to Arizona. The district judge denied Langley's motion stating:

“Well, I did review your Motion Attacking the Sufficiency of the Evidence, which I viewed pretty much like what you've talked here today, and that is a Motion for a [Judgment] of Acquittal. The difficulty there, for me, is that the standard there is whether a rational fact finder could find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and here the jury did that. So based on that, I'm going to deny your motion.”

The district court also granted Langley's request to proceed pro se at his sentencing hearing. The district court ultimately sentenced Langley to a term of 661 months in prison.

Langley timely appeals.

After the case was docketed, this panel granted Langley's motion to proceed pro se on appeal and file a supplemental brief. The court set a strict deadline of August 26, 2026, for his brief to be filed with this court. However, that date has come and gone, and Langley did not file any supplemental brief with this court. Accordingly, we considered only the briefs submitted by his appointed counsel and the State.

Analysis

On appeal, Langley raises two arguments. First, he argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove the element of premeditation. Alternatively, he argues there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for the lesser included offense of intentional second-degree murder, which prevents remand and resentencing on that lesser included offense.

We address Langley's arguments in turn.

Was there sufficient evidence to support the premeditation element of Langley's attempted first-degree murder conviction?

First, Langley argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove the element of premeditation. Specifically, he argues that his own testimony established that he intended to stab somebody but that he had no intention of killing anyone. He also argues that the small size of the knife used was not likely to cause a mortal wound and that he used the knife in a manner that reduced the likelihood of a lethal outcome because he avoided vital organs, arteries, and veins when Douglas was initially defenseless and susceptible to a more deadly attack.

In response, the State argues that there was sufficient evidence to support the element of premeditation because of the factors appellate courts consider when determining whether evidence supports an inference of premeditation to support the jury's verdict. The State reasons there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction via direct and circumstantial evidence.

Standard of Review and Preservation

“When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Mendez, 319 Kan. 718, 723, 559 P.3d 792 (2024). The jury is the fact-finder, and so an appellate court cannot “reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or pass on the credibility of witnesses.” 319 Kan. at 723; see also State v. Dotson, 319 Kan. 32, 37, 551 P.3d 1272 (2024) (holding it is the jury's task to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, not the appellate courts, and deference should be given to the jury's findings).

This issue is properly preserved for review because challenges to sufficiency of the evidence do not have to be raised in the district court to allow for review. State v. Farmer, 285 Kan. 541, 545, 175 P.3d 221 (2008).

There was sufficient evidence to support the premeditation element of Langley's attempted first-degree murder conviction.

“It is only in rare cases where the testimony is so incredible that no reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that a guilty verdict will be reversed.” State v. Zeiner, 316 Kan. 346, 350, 515 P.3d 736 (2022). Circumstantial evidence can support a conviction of even the gravest offense if the evidence allows a fact-finder to find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. To sufficiently support the conviction, circumstantial evidence does not need to exclude every other reasonable conclusion. State v. Barnes, 320 Kan. 147, 177-78, 563 P.3d 1255 (2025).

The jury has a right to make reasonable inferences. State v. Brazzle, 311 Kan. 754, 767, 466 P.3d 1195 (2020). Further, “[a] jury is not bound to accept the defendant's version of the incident in question and, having convicted the defendant, it is presumed to have believed the State's evidence and to have drawn from it all inferences favorable to the State.” State v. Hill, 33 Kan. App. 2d 907, 911, 111 P.3d 178 (2005) (quoting State v. Brunson, 13 Kan. App. 2d 384, Syl. ¶ 2, 771 P.2d 938 (1989).

To obtain a conviction for attempted first-degree murder, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Langley made an overt act toward the commission of murder in the first degree, which requires that one intentionally killed another and the killing was done with premeditation. See K.S.A. 21-5301(a); K.S.A. 21-5402(a)(1).

On appeal, Langley only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the premeditation element, so we only consider the evidence supporting that element. On premeditation, the jury was instructed:

“ ‘Premeditation’ means to have thought the matter over beforehand, in other words, to have formed the design or intent to kill before the act. Although there is no specific time period required for premeditation, the concept of premeditation requires more than the instantaneous, intentional act of taking another's life.”

Premeditation “exists when [the intent to kill] arises before the act takes place and is accompanied by reflection, some form of cognitive review (i.e., ‘thinking over’), deliberation, conscious pondering.” State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557, 572, 478 P.3d 324 (2020). Stated differently, “[p]remeditation requires more than mere impulse, aim, purpose, or objective”; rather, “[i]t requires a period, however brief, of thoughtful, conscious reflection and pondering—done before the final act of killing—that is sufficient to allow the actor to change his or her mind and abandon his or her previous impulsive intentions.” 312 Kan. at 574. So, premeditation consists of two components: “a temporal component (the intent must arise before the act) and a cognitive component (deliberation).” Dotson, 319 Kan. at 37-38. Most often, premeditation is proven through circumstantial evidence in which the jury can make reasonable inferences from the “case-specific circumstances.” 319 Kan. at 38.

When an appellate court reviews the sufficiency of evidence supporting premeditation, five nonexclusive factors are considered to determine whether the evidence supports an inference of premeditation: “(1) the nature of the weapon used, (2) the lack of provocation, (3) the defendant's conduct before and after the killing, (4) threats and declarations of the defendant before and during the occurrence, and (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the deceased was felled and rendered helpless.” 319 Kan. at 38; State v. Hilyard, 316 Kan. 326, 331, 515 P.3d 267 (2022).

Before we review these factors, we emphasize that there existed direct evidence of Langley's premeditation. Just before the stabbing, Langley yelled to his father, “I'm going to kill somebody.” Langley's father took this proclamation so seriously that he hung up on his son and called the police to report the statement.

We will now weigh each of the five factors supporting an inference of premeditation. First, we consider the nature of the weapon used. While the knife was relatively small, it was not as if the pocketknife with a four-inch blade just happened to be in Langley's pocket when he found himself in the fireworks stand that night. Rather, he testified that he put it in his pocket specifically because he was going to use it to stab someone. Langley testified that he picked up the pocketknife and left his apartment because he “was thinking about hurting somebody” and he “was thinking about opening up a can of whoop ass on somebody.” When he could not find his neighbor, Langley headed to the shopping center parking lot to find someone to stab. This factor weighs toward premeditation.

Second, we consider the lack of provocation leading to the stabbing. As Langley approached the fireworks tent, he pulled the knife out of his pocket. He walked up to Douglas and asked him about a specific type of firework and then, with no provocation, Langley stabbed Douglas twice. There was no provocation by Douglas that led to the stabbing, so this factor supports an inference of premeditation.

Third, we consider Langley's conduct before and after the crime. As we discussed above, before the stabbing Langley told his father he was going to kill someone, he grabbed his knife with the intent to hurt somebody and open “up a can of whoop ass.” Immediately after, as he was backing away from Douglas, Langley yelled, “God bless America” and “fuck you, niggers.” Langley also offered no aid to Douglas. Instead, he retreated on foot and attempted to hide the knife under a car he passed by during his retreat. This factor weighs in favor of an inference of premeditation.

Next, we consider threats and declarations by Langley before and during the occurrence. As discussed, Langley angrily told his father, “I'm going to kill somebody.” He grabbed his knife and left his apartment for the purpose of hurting someone. Immediately after his attack, Langley yelled, “God bless America” and “fuck you, niggers.” All these declarations, taken together, lend themselves toward an inference of premeditation.

The final factor for consideration is the dealing of lethal blows after the deceased was felled and rendered helpless. This factor is inconclusive in this case because Langley did not stab Douglas again after he was rendered helpless on the ground after the first two stabs.

Considering the direct evidence of Langley's serious threat that he was going to kill somebody and the four factors that weigh toward premeditation, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation to support Langley's conviction of attempted first-degree premeditated murder.

Such a holding is in line with the Kansas Supreme Court's holding in State v. Zongker, 319 Kan. 411, 555 P.3d 698 (2024). There, the court affirmed a jury's conviction of Zongker for first-degree premeditated murder based on circumstantial evidence of premeditation. 319 Kan. at 418-19. When examining the necessary factors, the court noted that Zongker used a firearm at point blank range to the victim's chest, the two had not been engaged in a heated argument before the shooting, he did not attempt to seek aid for the victim after shooting him and resumed the task he was doing prior to shooting the victim, and he attempted to justify his actions by insisting “the Mexicans” stole his money and that he was entitled to stand his ground. 319 Kan. at 418. The court determined that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for first-degree premeditated murder and to disagree would be to make credibility findings and reweigh the evidence presented, which is not the task of the reviewing court. 319 Kan. at 419.

Like in Zongker, here there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, even based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence was shown in Langley's actions leading up to stabbing Douglas: making the specific decision to take the knife with him when leaving his apartment, for the express purpose of committing a violent act; drawing the knife out so it was ready; and distracting Douglas with a question. Langley's actions also suggest an intent to inflict multiple stab wounds. He stabbed Douglas twice before Douglas was able to push him away. Then Langley ran away and attempted to dispose of his knife.

Importantly, unlike in Zongker, here the jury also heard direct evidence of premeditation. Langley told his father on the phone that he was going to kill someone. Langley thought about committing the act before doing it and had time to think about it, particularly when he chose to pick up his knife and went looking for his neighbor. After failing to locate his neighbor, Langley went in search of anyone he could stab.

Based on all the evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Langley guilty of premeditated attempted first-degree murder. As a result, Langley's conviction is affirmed.

Because there was sufficient evidence of premeditation here, we need not address Langley's second appellate argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the lesser included offense of intentional second-degree murder.

Affirmed.