State v. Anderson, 427 P.3d 847

On April 26, 2015, six‑month‑old A.O. suffered catastrophic head injuries (subdural and retinal hemorrhages, small ankle fracture) and died; medical experts concluded the injuries were non‑accidental and consistent with shaking or being thrown onto a soft surface.
Anthony Anderson was the sole adult present with A.O. during the critical period and was charged with child abuse and felony murder (death as result of underlying child abuse).
The State sought to admit prior‑bad‑acts evidence under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60‑455; a witness (Tesla Bodine) was proffered to testify she observed Anderson be rough with A.O.; the court allowed the testimony and denied a limiting instruction at defendant’s request.
Defense requested a unanimity (multiple‑acts) instruction for the child abuse count; the court refused, treating the case as an alternative‑means case (shaking or throwing as alternative means of a single offense).
At trial, the State’s medical experts testified the injuries could not result from a fall; the defense presented a forensic pathologist offering a competing cause. The jury convicted Anderson of both counts; the district court imposed life plus 34 months consecutive.
On direct appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court, Anderson raised four claims: failure to give a unanimity instruction; three instances of prosecutorial misconduct in closing; erroneous admission of K.S.A. 60‑455 testimony; and cumulative error. The court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Anderson)	Held
Unanimity instruction for child abuse	Not required because State alleged a single incident and presented alternative means (shaken or thrown).	Multiple acts were presented (shaken vs. thrown) so jury must be unanimous on specific act.	Court: Alternative‑means case, not multiple acts; no unanimity instruction required.
Admission of K.S.A. 60‑455 evidence (Bodine)	Testimony was admissible to prove identity/relationship/absence of accident; any error harmless because same evidence was admitted via detective.	Admission was improper because the listed purposes were not disputed; testimony prejudicial.	Any error harmless: similar, unchallenged testimony from detective conveyed same, prejudicial effect.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (three comments)	Arguments were reasonable inferences from evidence about credibility and context.	Prosecutor speculated beyond record (doctors’ motives, accused calling victim his son as manipulative, invented temper/imaginary script).	Court found three errors but concluded none were prejudicial under Chapman; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cumulative error	Errors did not collectively undermine fairness of trial.	Combined errors (unanimity, evidence, prosecutorial) denied fair trial.	Cumulative‑error rule not met; after assuming arguable errors, totality did not substantially prejudice defendant.

State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591 (explains unanimity instruction framework and multiple acts vs. alternative means)
State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449 (distinguishes alternative means from multiple acts)
State v. Littlejohn, 298 Kan. 632 (single fatality limits felony murder to one count; unanimity as to means not required)
State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367 (K.S.A. 60‑455 harmlessness where similar unchallenged testimony existed)
State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 (two‑step prosecutorial error analysis: error then prejudice)
State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657 (Chapman harmlessness standard applied to prosecutorial error)