By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Carnival killer's appeal denied
Kimberley Younger
Kimberley Younger

The Kansas Supreme Court on Oct. 4 announced it has denied the appeal of Kimberley S. Younger, convicted of murdering Alfred “Sonny” Carpenter and Pauline Carpenter, both of Wichita, at the Barton County Fair in July 2018. 

Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s office charged two other individuals who were also convicted in the murders: Michael Fowler, Jr., Sarasota, Fla.; and Rusty Frasier, Aransas Pass, Texas. 

Younger was from McIntosh, Fla. Also convicted were Christine Tenney, Santa Fe, Texas; and Thomas Drake, Van Buren, Ark., each charged with three counts of obstructing apprehension.

Younger, now 58 years old, is incarcerated at the Topeka Correctional Facility where her custody level is maximum. She is working in a job.


The Court's statement follows:


Appeal No. 124,601 archived oral argument

Younger, a carnival worker, convinced a couple of coworkers she had connections to a so-called “carnival mafia.” She claimed this putative criminal enterprise was involved in drug and weapons activities and was under the control of a carnival owner on the East Coast. She persuaded her coworkers they should kill someone to establish their credentials to become members of the carnival mafia and become heirs to his operation. After months of planning, they murdered an elderly couple who ran a small merchandise booth at the Barton County Fair. After they were arrested, the shooters cooperated with law enforcement and pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. Younger was charged with her role of planning and carrying out the crimes. A Barton County jury convicted her of one count of premeditated capital murder, one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, one count of solicitation to commit first-degree murder, and one count of theft. For the murder, Younger was sentenced to a lifetime term of imprisonment with no possibility of parole, and she received additional consecutive terms for the other counts.

Writing for a Supreme Court majority, Justice Eric Rosen affirmed the convictions, but reversed part of the restitution ordered by the trial court. Younger raised several claims of trial error in her appeal.

Younger initially argued her constitutional right to confront a witness against her was violated when a witness for the State was allowed to testify remotely through a video platform. The State called as a rebuttal witness the carnival owner who Younger claimed was the head of a crime family. He asserted he was at risk of COVID-19 and it would not be safe for him to travel to Barton County to testify in the courtroom. The trial judge allowed him to appear remotely, and he rebutted Younger’s claim that he was a criminal mastermind. Younger argued on appeal that such remote testimony violated both the U.S. Constitution’s confrontation clause and the Kansas Constitution’s right to confront adversarial witnesses face-to-face. The Court relied on established caselaw to conclude that Younger’s federal constitutional right was adequately protected. The Court declined to consider her claim that she had greater protection under the Kansas Constitution because that issue had not been adequately presented to either the trial court or the Supreme Court.

Justice Caleb Stegall, joined by Justice Evelyn Wilson, disagreed on this latter conclusion and would have decided the state constitutional question. They contended Younger had adequately preserved the issue and the plain language of the state constitution supported her claim. They nevertheless concurred in the decision, finding that any error in this matter was harmless.

The Court unanimously rejected Younger’s other assertions of trial errors, including the admission of statements she made spontaneously while in custody and statements she made to police during interrogation; admission of evidence retrieved from her backpack and cell phone; comments by witnesses purporting to attack her honesty; and the ongoing presence of a witness for the State in the courtroom. But the Court noted several errors in the imposition of restitution and reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to correct those errors.