State v. CHANTHASENG, 261 P.3d 889

Chanthaseng was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child (M.C.T.), a 12-year-old niece, in Wichita, Kansas.
Alleged offenses involved touching the girl in the living room and hallway, with the defendant paying her $32.
Defense presented an interpretation that My T. Nguyen in jail claimed the cousin pressured the girl to make the allegations in exchange for money, and Nguyen’s statements were sought to be admitted though ultimately excluded.
Nguyen, a jail inmate, invoked Fifth Amendment privilege and was unavailable; the district court ruled testimony about his statements inadmissible.
Prosecutor argued disclosure of sexual abuse is a process rather than an event, and highlighted the victim’s credibility during closing; defense challenged age instruction at sentencing.
The jury received an age element instruction that did not expressly include age 18 or older; Chanthaseng was sentenced under Jessica’s Law (off-grid) based on an age at crime dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Nguyen statements	Chanthaseng argues Nguyen's statements were nonhearsay or admissible under 60-460(j).	Nguyen's statements were improperly excluded and could support defense theory.	Claim not reached on merits due to preservation and pretrial objections; evidentiary issue not saved for appeal.
Prosecutorial misconduct for 'disclosure' theme and credibility comments	State used the 'process of disclosure' to influence the jury and commented on credibility with improper basis.	Prosecutor's comments were outside the proper scope and improperly commented on credibility.	First prong shows misconduct; not plain error overall; argument not reversible under the circumstances.
Plain-error standard after Ward and Simmons	Prosecutor's misconduct requires reversal under plain error due to prejudicial impact.	Evidence was strong; no plain error.	Misconduct not plain error; not reversible given context and evidence.
Defendant's age instruction and sentencing under Jessica's Law	Omission of age element instruction requires resentencing if 18 or older at time of crime was essential.	Age was uncontested and overwhelming; error harmless.	Age element error held harmless; no resentencing required.

State v. Brown, 291 Kan. 646 (2011) (preservation and argument on evidentiary issues)
State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419 (2009) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct and harmless error)
State v. Simmons, 292 Kan. 406 (2011) (prosecutorial misconduct involving misused themes; plain error evaluation)
State v. Huerta-Alvarez, 291 Kan. 247 (2010) (danger of relying on unsworn or nonexpert theories)
State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501 (2000) (hearsay and admissibility principles)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmful-effect standard under prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (2010) (harmless-error analysis for omitted elements)