State v. Cato-Perry, 284 P.3d 363

Two men robbed a Wichita Church’s Chicken on June 25, 2007; one alleged robber (Cato-Perry) is tall, the other shorter; the taller man hit the employee and the shorter man took money from a cash register; no eyewitness identified Cato-Perry; DNA from a cup matched Cato-Perry two years later; court convicted Cato-Perry of aggravated robbery based on DNA and theory of aiding/abetting or principal.
Shift manager Sells and other employee interactions established the sequence of events; the two robbers fled through the back after taking over $200.
DNA evidence linked Cato-Perry to one cup used by the robbers; no direct identification at scene; two assailants acted in concert.
Court applied Timley/Wright framework for alternative means and acknowledged aiding/abetting as potential alternative means.
Majority concludes there was insufficient evidence to prove Cato-Perry as either principal or aider/abettor for all elements, so reverses and remands for new trial on aiding/abetting aggravated robbery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether aiding and abetting is an alternative means under Kansas law.	Cato-Perry—state proves aider/abettor, but not principal.	Aiding/abetting is an alternative means; defendant cannot be convicted on a single theory.	Yes; aiding and abetting is an alternative means for this crime.

State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (1994) (substantial evidence rule for alternative means; jury unanimity concern)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (unanimity framework; Timley reaffirmed)
State v. Kitchen, 110 Wash. 2d 403 (1988) (unanimity in alternative means context (cited by Kansas))
State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76 (2009) (principals and aiders equally guilty; charging theories not crucial to guilt)
State v. Schriner, 215 Kan. 86 (1974) (aiding/abetting liability; purposeful participation)