State v. Aguirre, 245 P.3d 1

Aguirre was convicted in 2006 for failing to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act and in 2007 for rape, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and aggravated intimidation of a victim; retrial in 2008 followed a mistrial in 2007.
Registration violation occurred after Aguirre moved residences without updating his registration as required by K.S.A. 22-4904(b).
During investigation for registration violation, authorities learned of an alleged sexual abuse of NR, a 15-year-old; NR later recanted, but prior statements were introduced at trial.
On appeal, Aguirre challenged trial rulings in the 2006 case and the 2007 charges, with both appeals consolidated for review.
The court upheld the convictions and addressed claims related to in limine actions, exculpatory evidence, cumulative error, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing under KSGA and Apprendi framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mistrial based on limine violation	Aguirre: violation of order in limine merits mistrial.	Aguirre: minimal prejudice; none gross or prejudicial.	No abuse; modest prejudice insufficient for mistrial.
Exculpatory evidence disclosure	Prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory info about Widows' alleged rape claim.	Claim was irrelevant to registration charge; Aguirre knew of the claim; no duty to disclose.	No failure to disclose exculpatory evidence; claim not exculpatory as to charged crime.
Cumulative errors	Multiple errors cumulatively denied a fair trial.	No independently prejudicial errors; no cumulative effect.	No cumulative error; claim fails.
Sufficiency of evidence for rape and aggravated indecent liberties	Prior inconsistent statements can support conviction; ample evidence supports charges.	Recantations erode sufficiency; lack of physical evidence.	Substantial evidence supported convictions; prior statements admissible to prove offenses.
Sentencing and Apprendi/KSGA	Criminal history enhances sentencing under KSGA; no due process violation.	Use of criminal history to enhance penalties may violate Apprendi.	Courts uphold use of criminal history and persistent sex offender enhancements under Ivory, Allen, and Johnson.

State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318 (2009) (abuse of discretion standard for mistrial ruling)
State v. Crum, 286 Kan. 145 (2008) (prejudice standard for in limine violations)
State v. Albright, 283 Kan. 418 (2007) (factors for determining prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 (2004) (prejudice considerations for evidentiary error)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (2002) (Apprendi-based challenges to use of criminal history)
State v. Allen, 283 Kan. 372 (2007) (persistent sex offender sentencing provisions survive due process review)
State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824 (2008) (Apprendi considerations in sentencing; no findings required for persistent offender enhancements)
State v. Coppage, 34 Kan. App. 2d 776 (2005) (prior inconsistent statements used to support convictions)
State v. Quinones, 42 Kan. App. 2d 48 (2009) (unanimity issue not persuasive to this analysis)
State v. Barajas, 43 Kan. App. 2d 639 (2010) (general framework for appellate review in sentencing and due process)