Skip to contentSkip to navigation

The District Attorney’s Statement in Response to the Dismissal of the Complaint in State v. Blood

Wednesday, March 27, 2019 - 5:20pm

This case presented our office with an extremely unique set of facts.  Clearly Ms. Blood was negligent during the deployment of her firearm. Kansas law, however, provides little to no guidance on how to proceed in these circumstances. Kansas, unlike some states, does not recognize criminal negligence.  Kansas does recognize reckless conduct.  To determine whether or not probable cause existed that Ms. Blood acted recklessly, the Court had to determine whether “a trier of fact could conclude with the evidence presented that Ms. Blood consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk.”  The Court concluded she did not act recklessly. 

It is the duty of the District Attorney’s Office to present evidence for a judge to consider in making a probable cause determination if a crime occurred.  The State does not anticipate filing any different charges against Ms. Blood.  The State will review the Court’s ruling and determine whether an appeal of the dismissal should be filed. 


*Rule 226 - Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct
3.6 Advocate: Trial Publicity
3.8 Advocate: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

Media Contact

Cheryl Wright Kunard - Assistant to the District Attorney