State v. Flynn, 257 P.3d 1259

Flynn was charged with multiple offenses following a sexual encounter with A.S., including rape counts tied to different locations in or around a vehicle.
At trial, the judge did not grant a Bunyard-type instruction about a reasonable time to cease intercourse after consent is withdrawn; no party requested such instruction.
Flynn testified that after they went to the ground, A.S. stated she did not want to continue, and it took Flynn 30 seconds to 2 minutes to stop, which he claimed was consistent with consent withdrawal.
A.S. testified that Flynn forced her to have sex and that the entire encounter was nonconsensual, with multiple rapes and acts of forcible conduct.
The jury acquitted Flynn of all other charges and convicted him of one rape count occurring on the ground in front of the vehicle.
The trial court’s failure to give Bunyard-type guidance became the centerpiece of Flynn’s appeal, leading to a reversal and remand for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bunyard instruction was required	Flynn argues he was entitled to Bunyard guidance.	State contends no error since no request or jury question invoked Bunyard.	Yes; Bunyard instruction should have been given; conviction reversed and remanded.

State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392 (2006) (establishes a reasonable time to act after withdrawal of consent and jury guidance on post-penetration withdrawal)
State v. Hendrix, 289 Kan. 859 (2009) (entitlement to jury instructions on the defendant's theory of defense)
State v. Anderson, 287 Kan. 325 (2008) (defendant's theory supported by own testimony if rationally supported)
State v. Robinson, No. 99,443 (2009) (unpublished; recognized Bunyard context)
State v. Martinez, 288 Kan. 443 (2009) (instruction reviewed under clearly erroneous standard; need not be clearly erroneous if no request)
State v. Tyler, 251 Kan. 616 (1992) (juror deliberations considered as separate crimes; standard for analyzing verdicts)