State v. Gaona, 270 P.3d 1165

Gaona was convicted of rape and aggravated sodomy involving his stepdaughter, M.L., with seven counts charged; the jury convicted Counts One, Two, and Seven, while Count Three was reversed on appeal.
The Court of Appeals remanded Counts One and Two and Seven for sentencing and Count Three for attempted rape instructions, prompting review by this court on seven issues.
The State relied on expert testimony from Robins (Executive Director of Finding Words) about patterns of child sexual abuse, which Gaona challenged as unqualified.
The defense presented a psychologist who criticized the Finding Words protocol, and Gaona testified to prostate problems and other defenses.
The court addressed evidentiary rulings including admission of expert testimony, alleged error in attempted-sodomy instructions, exclusion of medical records, and admissibility of pornographic movie evidence, along with cumulative error and sentencing issues.
The court affirmed most decisions, found one evidentiary error harmless, and upheld Gaona’s three remaining convictions and sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Expert testimony on child-victim behavior admissible?	Gaona argues Robbins lacked proper qualifications to discuss victim behaviors.	State contends Robbins’ testimony falls within 60-456(b) as general behavior patterns.	Error but harmless; no reversal of convictions.
Should there have been lesser-included attempt instructions for Counts Two and Seven?	Gaona asserts trial erred by not instructing on attempt.	State maintains evidence shows complete offenses or none; no basis for attempt instruction.	No reversible error; no real possibility of conviction on attempted offenses.
Exclusion of Gaona’s medical records was proper?	Gaona claims records were integral to his defense.	State argues records were irrelevant, untimely, and improperly disclosed.	Exclusion sustained; harmless error analysis applied; no prejudice.
Pornographic movie evidence under 60-455 admissibility preserved?			Contemporaneous objection required; issue not reached on merits.
Admission of prior consistent statements preserved; error?			Preservation deemed insufficiently challenged; merits not reached; exceptions noted.

State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmlessness standard for nonconstitutional error before verdicts)
Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (2010) (general statements by expert about child abuse victims permitted)
McQuillen, 239 Kan. 590 (1986) (psychiatrist permissible to testify about rape trauma symptoms)
McIntosh, 274 Kan. 939 (2002) (allowed to discuss behavioral patterns of sexually abused victims by certain professionals)
Plaskett, 271 Kan. 995 (2001) (testimony about victim’s behavior consistent with sexual abuse)
Reser, 244 Kan. 306 (1989) (social worker with expertise on child abuse permitted to testify about symptoms)
Willis, 256 Kan. 837 (1995) (social worker not allowed to diagnose PTSD but could discuss victim behavior)
Lash, 237 Kan. 384 (1985) (limits on expert testimony about victim credibility)