State v. Holman
284 P.3d 251
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Holman was convicted by a jury on three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child (Counts II, IV, V).
- The incidents relate to T.M.A., Holman’s stepdaughter, and occurred between spring 2006 and spring 2007; A.A. is T.M.A.’s sister who testified to observing some conduct.
- Holman was sentenced to two concurrent life terms for Counts IV and V, with a 25-year mandatory minimum under Jessica’s Law, and a concurrent 59-month term for Count II.
- The State sought to admit uncharged-sexual-conduct evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 about an incident in T.M.A.’s bedroom; Holman objected pretrial but did not renew objections at trial.
- Holman sought to admit other prior sexual-history evidence under K.S.A. 21-3525 (rape shield) and to introduce A.A.’s prior molestation history; the court excluded or limited this evidence.
- The appellate court affirmed Counts II and IV, reversed and vacated Count V for multiplicity and double jeopardy concerns, and remanded for resentencing on Count IV under the KSGA nondrug grid; Count IV’s life sentence with Jessicas’s Law remained, but the on-grid offset was ordered for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility and limiting instruction for K.S.A. 60-455 evidence | Holman challenged admission of prior uncharged conduct; sought limiting instruction. | Holman argued due process/confrontation issues and need for limiting instruction. | Preservation failed; limiting instruction required but not clearly erroneous; no reversible error found. |
| State’s in limine ruling excluding A.A.’s prior molestation evidence | Evidence relevant to motive/credibility; should be admitted. | Evidence lacked material relevance to Holman’s defense. | District court did not err; exclusion proper under rape shield and relevance standards. |
| Admission of T.M.A.'s prior sexual conduct under K.S.A. 21-3525 | Proffered evidence could support defense theory about knowledge of sex. | Evidence not material/probative; not an integral defense. | Exclusion not error; no material/probative relevance. |
| Limitation on Holman’s cross-examination of the victim | Cross-examination of prosecutor’s prep of witness essential to Confrontation Clause rights. | Limitation prejudiced right to test credibility. | Harmless error; cross-examination restrictions did not affect outcome given other corroboration. |
| Multiplicity and unit-of-prosecution for Counts IV and V; Jessica’s Law implications | Two counts under same statute may be separate offenses; trial court error if multiplicity. | Counts IV and V were unitary conduct under 21-3504(a)(3)(A); only one unit of prosecution. | Counts IV and V are multiplicious; Count V reversed and vacated; remanded for Count IV resentencing on KSGA grid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (2011) (preservation via contemporaneous objection required; not preserved here)
- State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568 (2010) (clear standard for 60-455 and limiting instructions; review preserved defect)
- State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 (2006) (necessity of limiting instruction for 60-455 evidence; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Sprung, 294 Kan. 300 (2012) (unit of prosecution under 21-3504(a)(3)(A) clarified)
- State v. Nguyen, 281 Kan. 702 (2006) (harmless error factors in Confrontation Clause context)
- State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 667 (2010) (harmless error analysis for age finding under Jessica’s Law)