State v. Bollinger, 302 Kan. 309

Brent Bollinger set fire to the marital home on October 13, 2011; his wife, Brenna, and their young son Bryson were in the house; Brenna died and Bryson and Bollinger suffered severe burns.
Bollinger owned the house prior to the marriage; Brenna had moved in and later filed for divorce and obtained ex parte temporary orders granting her temporary exclusive possession of the marital residence.
Bollinger was criminally charged with first‑degree murder (premeditated or felony murder), aggravated arson (alleging another person had an interest in the dwelling), and aggravated child endangerment; a jury convicted him on felony murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated child endangerment.
On appeal Bollinger challenged: (1) sufficiency of evidence that "any interest" existed in the dwelling; (2) vagueness of the arson statute; (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; and (4) admission of out‑of‑court statements (hearsay).
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the record, concluded Brenna had a cognizable legal interest (marital/inchoate rights, temporary exclusive possession/leasehold‑type interest), rejected the vagueness challenge as applied, found no prosecutorial misconduct, and held the hearsay objections were unpreserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: "any interest" element of arson	State: evidence (marital residence, temporary exclusive possession, inchoate probate/divorce interests) sufficed to prove another had an interest	Bollinger: house was solely his property; State failed to prove Brenna had any legal interest	Held: Evidence supported a reasonable inference Brenna had a cognizable interest (marital inchoate rights, temporary exclusive possession/tenancy at sufferance); conviction upheld
Statute vagueness ("any interest")	State: statute reasonably construed; applied here to ordinary legal interests	Bollinger: phrase is overbroad/vague, could criminalize many lawful burnings; lacks notice	Held: Not unconstitutionally vague as applied; statute gives fair warning and guards against arbitrary enforcement in this context
Prosecutorial misconduct (closing)	State: prosecutor invited jury to listen and draw reasonable inferences from 911 recording	Bollinger: prosecutor commented on facts not in evidence (identifying scream as Brenna)	Held: No misconduct—argument asked jury to draw reasonable inferences from evidence and recording; not improper
Admission of out‑of‑court statements (hearsay)	State: proffered statements to show state of mind and other exceptions	Bollinger: admission of hearsay statements violated his rights	Held: Issue not preserved—defense made only a general/continuing objection, which did not preserve specific hearsay objections for appeal

State v. Boone, 277 Kan. 208 (explaining that "any interest" expanded protected property interests under arson statute)
State v. Parrish, 205 Kan. 33 (construing earlier arson requirement as fee ownership)
State v. Crosby, 182 Kan. 677 (mortgagee interest did not suffice under prior statute)
State v. Houck, 240 Kan. 130 (mortgagee/insurer interest not within arson statute despite later amendments)
State v. Rodriguez, 269 Kan. 633 (no requirement defendant knew identity of persons with property interest)
State v. Schumacher, 298 Kan. 1059 (prosecutor may ask jury to compare/interpret sounds on recording; allowed reasonable inferences)
State v. Longoria, 301 Kan. 489 (standard for sufficiency review)