In re A.B., 484 P.3d 226

Background

A.B., born Sept. 21, 2001, and T.C., born Jan. 9, 2001, engaged in sexual intercourse when both were about 14; A.B. was a few months younger.
State first charged A.B. under the "Romeo and Juliet" statute, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5507; the district court dismissed that charge based on In re E.R., which read the statute to apply only to an offender older than the other juvenile.
The State then charged A.B. with aggravated indecent liberties with a child, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5506(b)(1) (sex with a 14- or 15-year-old), a more severe offense; the district court held that statute vague, overbroad, and violative of equal protection as applied.
The State directly appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court, which reviewed statutory interpretation and constitutional challenges (vagueness, overbreadth, as-applied equal protection).
The Supreme Court reversed: it held K.S.A. 21-5506(b)(1) is not vague or overbroad as argued, overruled In re E.R. (the Court of Appeals decision), and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vagueness of K.S.A. 21-5506(b)(1)	Statute fails to give fair notice whether a younger juvenile who consensually has sex with an older juvenile can be prosecuted.	Statute plainly prohibits sexual intercourse with a child aged 14–15 and provides fair warning.	Not unconstitutionally vague as-applied; the arbitrary-enforcement claim was not preserved on appeal.
Overbreadth (privacy of minors)	Criminalizing 14–15-year-old minors' consensual intercourse with age-mates infringes privacy and is a significant part of the statute's target.	State may regulate minors' sexual conduct; challenger's showing of protected activity is insufficient.	Not overbroad; A.B. failed to show protected activity is a significant part of the statute's reach.
As-applied Equal Protection	Disparate treatment: E.R. limits Romeo-and-Juliet protection to the older participant, so A.B. faces harsher punishment than her older partner.	The Court of Appeals in E.R. misread K.S.A. 21-5507; the statute contains no requirement that the offender be older.	Court overruled E.R.; no equal protection violation based on that erroneous classification.
Scope of K.S.A. 21-5507 (Romeo-and-Juliet)	(Per E.R.) "offender" must be older than the other child by less than 4 years.	Statutory text says offender is "less than four years of age older than the child" and contains no absolute requirement that offender be older.	K.S.A. 21-5507 does not require the offender to be older; E.R. incorrectly added an element and is overruled.

Key Cases Cited

In re E.R., 40 Kan. App. 2d 986 (2008) (Court of Appeals interpretation that offender must be older; overruled)
State v. Limon, 280 Kan. 275 (2005) (discusses Romeo-and-Juliet consequences vs. general sex-offense statutes)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (adult private consensual sexual conduct protected under Due Process)
State v. Bollinger, 302 Kan. 309 (2015) (vagueness standard and two-prong test: fair notice and protection against arbitrary enforcement)
State v. Harris, 311 Kan. 816 (2020) (distinguishing fair-notice and arbitrary-enforcement prongs)
State v. Pulliam, 308 Kan. 1354 (2018) (plain statutory language controls; courts will not read into statute absent ambiguity)
State v. Kinder, 307 Kan. 237 (2018) (specific statutory provision controls over general statute)
State v. Salas, 289 Kan. 245 (2009) (similarly situated requirement for equal protection challenges)