State v. Clary, 270 P.3d 1206

Clary was convicted by jury of aggravated kidnapping, rape, and criminal threat in Kansas.
The State charged Clary with aggravated kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, and criminal threat after a June 2–3, 2009 incident.
The jury instructions described multiple acts under the kidnapping statute and referenced “another” as a possible target.
Clary challenged sufficiency of evidence for an alternative means, denial of a mistrial, and failure to give lesser included offense instructions.
The trial court denied mistrial and rejected lesser included offense requests; it did admonish the jury to disregard the problematic testimony.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the “another” language was surplusage and there was sufficient evidence; it rejected mistrial and lesser included offense errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence for alternative means in aggravated kidnapping?	Clary	Clary	No error; sufficient evidence supported conviction despite surplusage.
Did E.H.’s mother’s testimony require a mistrial?	State	Clary	No; admonition cured potential prejudice; error, if any, harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
Should the court have given lesser included offense instructions?	Clary	State	No; evidence did not permit rational verdict on lesser offenses; instructions refused correct.

State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (Kan. 1994) (alternative means requires substantial evidence for each means)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (Kan. 2010) (unanimity on underlying acts, not on each means)
State v. Turbeville, 235 Kan. 993 (Kan. 1984) (disjuncts create alternative means under kidnapping)
State v. Crane, 260 Kan. 208 (Kan. 1996) (insufficient evidence on alternative means; due process concerns)
State v. Johnson, 27 Kan. App. 2d 921 (Kan. App. 2000) (harmless error analysis for deception as a means (distinguished))