State v. Clark, 298 Kan. 843

Defendant Robert D. Clark, grandfather of two girls (A.L., 12; C.L., 10), was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under 14 (K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(3)(A)) for repeatedly touching the girls’ breast area over clothing.
Allegations covered a several-month period beginning before Christmas 2008; both girls testified to repeated rubbing while sitting on a couch with Clark’s arm around their shoulders.
Clark admitted to investigators that his hand moved to the girls’ upper breast area repeatedly, claimed some touching was ‘‘unintentional’’ or unconscious, denied sexual arousal, and said he tried telling himself to stop.
Investigators used separate forensic interviews with anatomically correct dolls; Clark researched statutes and kept a journal expressing awareness he could be prosecuted.
Trial evidence: girls’ testimony, detective’s testimony, video of Clark’s interview, and Clark’s journal; Clark did not testify.
Jury convicted; sentencing judge imposed concurrent life sentences (mandatory minimum 25 years under Jessica’s Law) and ordered lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring in the journal entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (intent element)	State: circumstantial evidence (pattern, nature of touching, persistence after protest, consciousness of guilt) supports specific intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires	Clark: lack of direct evidence of arousal; touching was accidental/unconscious; no under-clothing contact, sexual requests, threats, or gag orders	Affirmed — a rational factfinder could infer specific intent from circumstantial evidence; convictions upheld
Lifetime postrelease supervision	State: sentencing court imposed postrelease supervision	Clark: court lacked authority to impose lifetime postrelease supervision with an off-grid indeterminate life sentence	Vacated — court erred; sentencing court cannot add lifetime postrelease supervision to an off-grid indeterminate life sentence; vacate that portion of sentence
Lifetime electronic monitoring	State: journal entry imposed lifetime electronic monitoring	Clark: sentencing court lacked authority to impose parole conditions (electronic monitoring) in sentence	Remanded for nunc pro tunc correction — lifetime electronic monitoring in the journal entry vacated/corrected because sentencing court cannot impose parole conditions; remand to correct journal entry

State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (specific-intent element and that actual arousal is not required)
State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842 (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction)
State v. Summers, 293 Kan. 819 (sentencing court cannot order postrelease supervision for off-grid indeterminate life sentence)
State v. Cash, 293 Kan. 326 (parole is distinct from sentence; sentencing court lacks authority to impose parole/postrelease supervision for off-grid life term)
State v. Mason, 294 Kan. 675 (sentencing court lacks authority to impose parole conditions such as lifetime electronic monitoring)
State v. Phillips, 295 Kan. 929 (consciousness of guilt evidence relevant to intent)