Sharp v. Rohling, No. 14-3090 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2006, Kimberly Sharp was living homeless in Kansas with her two children. One day while she was with three homeless men at a camp site, David Owen approached the group and harangued them for being homeless. An altercation ensued. Two of the homeless men dragged Owen into the woods and tied him to a tree, where he was later found dead. While investigating the death, police interviewed Sharp. During the interview, she confessed to playing a role and accompanied officers to the camp site to re-enact the events. The police videotaped the interview and re-enactment. She was subsequently charged in state court with first-degree felony murder and kidnapping. Sharp moved to suppress her confessional statements, arguing they were involuntary because the police promised leniency and help finding shelter for her and her children to live. The court denied the motion, concluding her statements were voluntary based on its factual finding that Sharp was not operating under any promises. A jury later found Sharp guilty, and she was sentenced her to life in prison (with a chance of parole after 20 years) on the murder conviction and 61 months in prison on the kidnapping conviction, to run concurrently. She appealed the denial of her motion to suppress. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the record supported the trial court’s finding that Sharp was not operating under any promises. She then filed for habeas relief, arguing her confessions were not voluntary and were admitted in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court denied her petition and granted her a certificate of appealability (“COA”). On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Sharp challenged the state supreme court’s factual findings and again sought habeas relief. the Tenth Circuit concluded Sharp overcame the deferential constraints of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), as to the court’s fact-finding. Thus reviewing this matter de novo, the Court determined Sharp’s confessional statements following a promise of no jail time were involuntary, the state trial court erred by admitting them at trial in violation of Sharp’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the error was harmful. The district court was reversed and Sharp’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as to her convictions, subject to the state’s right to retry Sharp within a reasonable time, was granted.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.