State v. Boleyn, 303 P.3d 680

Boleyn was convicted of one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and given a hard 25 life sentence under Jessica’s Law.
Valentine reported concerns about Boleyn’s relationship with her son T.V. after their breakup, including late-night messages and unusual attention to T.V.
A recorded phone conversation between T.V. and Boleyn was admitted at trial.
Prior to cross-examination, the State sought to introduce evidence of Boleyn possessing child pornography; the parties later stipulate to a broader pornography exhibit.
The district court admitted the stipulation for impeachment purposes but noted a continuing objection by defense counsel.
The court ultimately upheld the hard 25 life sentence after applying Freeman factors and rejected Seward-remand arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of impeachment evidence	State argues stipulation about porn shows immorality undermines credibility.	Boleyn contends homosexual pornography is improper impeachment and prejudicial.	Error to admit for impeachment; harmless under 60-261; did not require new trial.
Harmlessness of the improperly admitted evidence	State: error had little impact; most damaging evidence was the recording.	Error could have affected verdict on credibility.	Under 60-261, harmless; conviction affirmed.
Constitutionality of the hard 25 life sentence under Freeman	Freeman factors may require remand for more factual findings; challenge to proportionality.	Sentence may be disproportionate; Seward-created remand not applicable due to timing.	Freeman factors support constitutionality; sentence affirmed.

State v. Riojas, 288 Kan. 379 (2009) (relevancy standard for evidence under 60-401(b))
State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 (2009) (probative vs materiality; appellate review standards)
State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 (2008) (two-element relevancy; probative and materiality analysis)
State v. Blue, 221 Kan. 185 (1976) (rebuttal evidence admissible to attack credibility when properly invoked under 60-420)
State v. Nixon, 223 Kan. 788 (1978) (exception to preclusion of evidence to show witness untruthfulness when area opened by party)
State v. Sitlington, 291 Kan. 458 (2010) (rebuttal evidence to impeach testimony when originally opened by adversary)
State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 (2012) (Jessica’s Law; proportionality considerations in Freeman context)
State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018 (2012) (Freeman factors; de novo review of legal conclusions; factual underpinnings reviewed for substantial evidence)
State v. Seward, 289 Kan. 715 (2009) (remand for Freeman findings; Rule 165 duty on district court clarified)
State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 (2008) (Freeman factors; nature of offense and offender as factual inquiry)
State v. Easterling, 289 Kan. 470 (2009) (briefing requirements affecting review of Freeman)