State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29

In spring 2009, Rasmüs R. Eddy’s 4-year-old granddaughter A.E. stayed at his home; she later reported multiple sexual acts by Eddy (finger contact, licking, exposure to pornography, and incidents where she slid down his face).
Eddy admitted allowing A.E. to view pornography, acknowledged rubbing baby oil on a sore inside her labia (admitting finger contact), and described incidental mouth contact while the child slid over his head; he also said the child grabbed his penis on two occasions.
A grand jury indicted Eddy on multiple counts: rape (penetration by finger or object), several counts of aggravated criminal sodomy (oral contact), aggravated indecent liberties (various touching/exposure incidents), and promoting obscenity to a minor.
A jury convicted Eddy on all counts except one sodomy count; the district court denied his posttrial motion (including multiplicity claims) and imposed a controlling 310-month sentence. Eddy appealed.
On appeal Eddy raised two issues: (1) the rape instruction created alternative means (finger vs. object) requiring sufficient evidence for each means, and (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for a psychological evaluation of the child victim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Eddy)	Held
Whether the rape instruction created alternative means (penetration by finger or by object) requiring evidence for each means	Instruction described penetration generally; the State argued proof of penetration (finger) satisfies element	Eddy argued instruction created alternative means so State needed evidence of penetration by an "object" as well as by a finger	Court followed State v. Britt: the definition did not create alternative means; proof of finger penetration was sufficient, conviction affirmed
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a psychological evaluation of the child victim	The State argued there were no compelling circumstances warranting an exam; Eddy’s own admissions corroborated the child’s account	Eddy argued the victim was impressionable, uncorroborated, and subject to influence by her mother and delay in law enforcement interview justified an exam	Court held no abuse of discretion: (1) Eddy’s statements corroborated key allegations; (2) no evidence of the child’s mental instability, lack of veracity, or false accusations; motion was a fishing expedition; denial affirmed

State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018 (2012) (holding the sexual-intercourse definition did not create alternative means; penetration is the gravamen)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (discussing alternative means and requirement for evidence of each instructed means)
State v. Stafford, 296 Kan. 25 (2012) (standard for ordering psychological evaluation of complaining witness in sex cases)
State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568 (2011) (nonexclusive factors for assessing whether compelling circumstances justify psychological exam of a victim)