State v. Foster, 298 Kan. 348

Defendant Stephen B. Foster was arrested at a CheckSmart after attempting to cash a $350 check drawn on Affordable Paintball’s stolen checkbook; owner testified he did not write or authorize the check.
CheckSmart employees tried to verify a prior $900 check but could not reach the maker; after Affordable Paintball reported checks stolen, staff detained Foster when he returned with the $350 check and police arrested him.
Foster testified he received the checks from a friend (Randy Ridens) who owed him money and denied knowledge the checks were forged or stolen.
Ridens, testifying under an immunity agreement, said the checks were stolen, Kasey Ferguson wrote them, and Foster knew the $350 check was not a payroll check.
Foster was convicted of forgery (among other counts); the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review solely on sufficiency of the evidence for the forgery conviction and whether "issuing or delivering" in K.S.A. 21-3710(a)(2) created alternative means requiring super‑sufficiency/unanimity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase "issuing or delivering" in K.S.A. 21-3710(a)(2) creates alternative means that trigger Timley super-sufficiency/unanimity	State: not alternative means; "issuing or delivering" are descriptive ways to prove offering a forged instrument.	Foster: "issuing" and "delivering" are disjunctive alternative means; State failed to prove he "issued" the check so unanimity/super-sufficiency required.	Court held "issuing or delivering" do not create alternative means; they describe ways to prove the single act of offering (uttering) a forged instrument, so super‑sufficiency/unanimity rule does not apply.
Whether evidence was sufficient to support forgery conviction given the court’s instruction using the phrase "issuing or delivering"	State: substantial competent evidence showed Foster delivered the forged check with intent to defraud.	Foster: insufficiency because no proof he "issued" the check and alternative‑means instruction required proof for each means.	Court held record shows Foster delivered the forged check knowingly with intent to defraud; because "issuing or delivering" are not separate means, evidence was sufficient and conviction affirmed.

State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (court explains method to determine whether statutory disjunctives create alternative means)
State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (establishes super-sufficiency requirement when statute sets out alternative means)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (reiterates unanimity requirement and role of alternative means rule)
State v. Norris, 226 Kan. 90 (interprets forgery statute as prohibiting three types of conduct; disjunctive language not read as separate means)
State v. Ahrens, 296 Kan. 151 (illustrates when statutory phrasing describes factual circumstances rather than separate elements)