State v. Inkelaar, 264 P.3d 81

Background

Inkelaar was convicted of one count of rape, one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, one count of attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and three counts of aggravated criminal sodomy involving two victims, M.C. (9) and Z.C. (11).
The State admitted 60-455 evidence of prior sexual abuse by Inkelaar against other children (B.W. and K.M.) to prove plan, intent, and absence of mistake or accident; trial court admitted it with a broad limiting instruction.
The 60-455 evidence was presented through testimony from B.W., K.M., and their father, plus related historical prosecutions dismissed years earlier; defense objected on prejudice and similarity grounds.
The jury heard evidence of strip Candyland and other sexual acts from M.C. and Z.C., plus Inkelaar’s police interview; certain recordings were not in the appellate record.
Jessica’s Law (K.S.A. 21-4643) sentencing issues arose because some offenses occurred after its July 1, 2006 effective date, and questions existed about age as an essential element not being in the complaint or jury instructions.
The defense sought to introduce third-party guilt evidence implicating A.C. (the children’s father), which the trial court denied under the third-party evidence rule.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 60-455 evidence	State argues 60-455 evidence is admissible to prove plan, and the court properly weighed probative value against prejudice.	Inkelaar argues the evidence is unduly prejudicial and not sufficiently similar to prove plan, intent, or absence of mistake.	No reversible error; evidence admissible for plan; harmless error for intent/absence of mistake; limiting instruction adequate.
Prosecutorial misconduct during Tyrone cross-examination	State contends questions about statute of limitations were within proper scope of cross-examination.	Inkelaar asserts the questions misled jury by signaling time-bar issues and prejudiced him.	Questions were improper; the State met its burden to show harmless error under the applicable standard.
Jessica's Law jurisdiction and age element in sentencing	State maintains complaint and jury instructions sufficiently informed; off-grid sentences permissible under the record.	Inkelaar contends lack of age allegation in complaint and missing age instruction deprived court of jurisdiction and trial rights.	Age element and jurisdiction defense rejected; error, if any, deemed harmless given overwhelming age evidence; off-grid sentences affirmed.
Exclusion of third-party guilt evidence	State argues no abuse of discretion; third-party evidence lacked causal connection to charged crimes.	Inkelaar contends court wrongly excluded evidence of A.C.'s prior alleged abuse as third-party guilt defense.	Court did not abuse discretion; none of the proffered third-party evidence sufficiently linked A.C. to the charged offenses.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hollingsworth, 289 Kan. 1250 (2009) (60-455 balancing test; harmless error analyzed)
State v. Garcia, 285 Kan. 1 (2007) (admissibility of 60-455 evidence for material fact; materiality standard)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless error standard; applies to both statutory and constitutional analyses)
State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (2010) (Harmless error when age element is uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence)
State v. Gonzales, 289 Kan. 351 (2009) (charging documents must inform nature and cause of accusation; off-grid issues)
State v. Martinez, 290 Kan. 992 (2010) (adequacy of complaint and charging information; off-grid sentencing concerns)
State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95 (2003) (third-party evidence rule framework)