State v. Calderon-Aparicio, 242 P.3d 1197

Calderon-Aparicio was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, distribute, or deliver and no drug tax stamp following a Johnson County trial.
Officers found 21 bundles of marijuana totaling about 42 pounds in a black bag from a drainage pipe after a disturbance near Interstate 435 and Midland Drive.
No fingerprints of value were recovered on the bundles or bag; drug testing and fingerprint analysis occurred at the Johnson County Criminalistics Laboratory.
An eyewitness, Edwards, identified Calderon-Aparicio after being asked to return to the scene; he described clothing and a mustache, and later identified Calderon-Aparicio in court.
The State amended count one three days before trial to add an alternative theory: possession with intent to sell, deliver, or distribute, not charging a different crime but providing alternative theories.
The trial court sentenced Calderon-Aparicio to a controlling term of 23 months in prison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of venue evidence	Calderon-Aparicio argues the state failed to prove Johnson County as the place of crime.	Calderon-Aparicio contends venue was not established by the facts.	Sufficient evidence showed venue in Johnson County.
Eyewitness identification preservation	State maintains no issue since the identification was properly admitted.	Calderon-Aparicio preserved the claim that the show-up was unnecessarily suggestive, violating due process.	Issue not preserved due to failure to object at trial; even if preserved, it fails on the record.
Amendment of complaint	Amendment added alternative theories for the same offense and did not prejudice Calderon-Aparicio.	Amendment charged a different crime by expanding elements.	Amendment upheld; no substantial rights prejudiced; not a different crime.

State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 ((2009)) (fond standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Griffin, 210 Kan. 729 ((1972)) (venue may be established by evidence other than explicit jurisdictional facts)
State v. Jones, 204 Kan. 719 ((1970)) (jury determines venue; substantial evidence acceptable)
State v. Stevens, 285 Kan. 307 ((2007)) (sufficient evidence to establish county of crime without explicit testimony)
State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811 ((2003)) (two-step test for eyewitness identification; not automatically inadmissible)
State v. Trammell, 278 Kan. 265 ((2004)) (totality-of-circumstances factors for identification reliability)
State v. King, 288 Kan. 333 ((2009)) (evidentiary objections must be preserved by contemporaneous objection)
State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485 ((2010)) (continues adherence to preservation rule for evidentiary errors)
State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419 ((2009)) (recognizes contemporaneous objection requirement; fundamental rights do not override)
State v. Starr, 259 Kan. 713 ((1996)) (amendment of counts for alternative theories permissible)
State v. Bischoff, 281 Kan. 195 ((2006)) (amendment before trial allowed when no new or different crime charged)
State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 ((2006)) (multiplicity analysis across statutes; same offense theory)
State v. Edwards, 264 Kan. 177 ((1998)) (defense strategy can involve cross-examining identification procedures)
State v. Lawson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 138 ((1998)) (two-person show-up can be impermissibly suggestive)