State v. Akins, 298 Kan. 592

Background

Michael Akins Jr. (then Inman police chief) was tried on multiple counts alleging sexual abuse of his wife's children; jury convicted on 15 of 19 counts and he received consecutive "hard 25" life terms plus additional months.
Allegations arose after Akins separated from his wife; four children (M, L, J, E) testified about various incidents occurring May–Dec 2009.
Defense presented a psychologist (Nichols) who criticized the Finding Words child-interview protocol as suggestive; the State introduced video-recorded interviews of the children.
During trial the prosecutor: (1) referenced Finding Words as the "gold standard" and cited an out-of-jurisdiction opinion; (2) repeatedly argued the children had been "groomed" without expert support and invoked grooming to prove intent; and (3) vouched for the complainants’ credibility and opined Akins lied.
The district court excluded proffered testimony from Akins’ family that M previously made a false allegation against her biological father on the ground the witnesses were related to Akins and lacked independent corroboration.

Issues

Issue	Akins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct — unsworn facts, grooming, and vouching	Prosecutor improperly asserted facts not in evidence ("gold standard"), introduced grooming without expert support and misstated law on intent, and vouched for witnesses / attacked defendant’s credibility	Two instances not misconduct; one conceded; any error harmless given overall evidence	Reversible error: misconduct occurred (all three categories) and was not harmless; convictions reversed and remanded for new trial
Exclusion of testimony about prior false allegation by M	Testimony that M (or mother) previously falsely accused M’s father was admissible to show bias/ motive and under Confrontation Clause; offered four family witnesses	Exclusion appropriate: witnesses were related to defendant and lacked independent corroboration; risk of unreliable, character-focused evidence	Reversed on this ground: exclusion based solely on witnesses’ family relation was error; relation affects weight not admissibility; may be admitted on remand (State may attack bias)
Jury unanimity / multiplicity (multiple-acts case)	Court failed to use written unanimity instructions and made only some oral elections; risk jurors convicted without agreeing on same act	State argued oral election was sufficient; conceded some failures; harmlessness now moot	Court recommends written unanimity/multiplicity instructions in retrial; oral election is inferior in complex multi-count cases
Jury polling statutory compliance (K.S.A. 22-3421)	Court failed to ask jurors whether verdict was theirs (asked only if they wished to be polled)	No objection at trial; issue likely moot on remand	Moot on appeal but court instructs strict statutory compliance on retrial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989 (state court 2013) (two-step prosecutorial-misconduct review and harmlessness standards)
State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 (state court 2004) (dual harmlessness standard discussion)
State v. Simmons, 292 Kan. 406 (state court 2011) (prosecutor improperly arguing facts not in evidence / claiming expertise)
State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906 (state court 2012) (discussing grooming in sexual-abuse context)
State v. Chanthaseng, 293 Kan. 140 (state court 2011) (limits on prosecutorial argument about victim disclosure patterns)
State v. Brown, 291 Kan. 646 (state court 2011) (specific-intent nature of indecent-liberties and related offenses)
State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501 (state court 2000) (prosecutor may not state personal opinion of witness credibility)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (state court 2011) (Chapman harmlessness standard articulation)
State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (state court 2013) (analysis when constitutional and nonconstitutional errors arise together)
State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (state court 2011) (prohibition on counsel arguing facts not supported by admissible evidence)