State v. Aguirre, 290 P.3d 612

Aguirre was convicted of rape, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and aggravated intimidation of a witness; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
On review, Aguirre challenged the sufficiency of evidence for alternative means of committing aggravated intimidation under K.S.A. 21-3832/21-3833.
The Supreme Court agreed to review three issues related to aggravated intimidation: alternative means in 21-3832, malice in 21-3831(b), and unanimity instruction issues.
Evidence showed Aguirre attempted to prevent or dissuade N.R. from reporting sexual abuse, with malice as defined by statute.
The panel’s reasoning and prior cases Brown and Wright guided the analysis of alternative means and legislative intent.
The Court ultimately affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate judgment, clarifying the nonexistence of alternative means in the statute and resolving unanimity issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 21-3832 provides alternative means	Aguirre argues there are two alternative means.	Aguirre relies on alternative means reasoning for two disjunctive elements.	No; no alternative means found.
Whether malice creates alternative means	Aguirre asserts the malice definition creates alternative means.	State contends malice does not create alternative means, only elaborates element.	Malice does not create alternative means.
Whether unanimity instruction was required	Aguirre requested unanimity on the specific-intent element due to alternative means.	State maintained unanimity not required because no alternative means were present.	Unanimity instruction not required.
Whether the evidence supports attempted prevention and malice	Sufficient evidence showed Aguirre attempted to prevent/dissuade and acted with malice.	Defense contested the sufficiency of proof for the aspect of intimidation.	Evidence sufficient to prove attempted prevention and malice.

State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (1994) (alternative means rule and super-sufficiency.)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (unanimity right; Timley rule necessity.)
Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (refined method to identify alternative means; legislative intent governs.)
Ahrens, 296 Kan. 151 (2012) (interpreted operate/attempt to operate; Stevens limited after Brown.)
Quinones, 42 Kan. App. 2d 48 (2009) (discussed alternative means in dicta; not essential to panel's decision.)
Stevens, 285 Kan. 307 (2007) (alternative means concept prior to Brown refinement.)
State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449 (2011) (unanimity instruction distinctions; multiple acts vs. alternative means.)
State v. Sanborn, 281 Kan. 568 (2006) (unanimity instruction considerations for single crime with multiple acts.)