State v. Jones, 288 P.3d 140

Jones was charged with aggravated criminal sodomy, furnishing alcohol to a minor for an illicit purpose, and endangering a child.
H.F. was sexually assaulted by Jones after being given alcohol and marijuana; hospital SANE examined her and collected samples.
Two sets of samples were collected: one for KBI forensic kit (not analyzed for drugs) and a second for hospital lab testing showing alcohol and marijuana.
The hospital lab results were not themselves admitted; only Nurse Gannon’s testimony describing the results was offered.
The appellate panel and trial court focused on whether the hospital lab results were testimonial and thus prohibited by Confrontation Clause, with other challenges raised (jury unanimity, lesser-included offense, and Apprendi-based sentencing).
The Court affirms the Court of Appeals, holding insufficient findings to determine testimonial nature of the lab results and affirming on other issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Testimoniality of lab results under Confrontation Clause	Jones argues nurse testimony about lab results violated Confrontation Clause.	State contends the nurse’s testimony was admissible as non-testimonial business-record-like evidence.	Record lacks findings; court affirms that nurse testimony was not testimonial.
Alternative means for endangering a child	Jones contends three acts could have supported endangering a child, implying misapplication of alternative means.	State argues issue not an alternative-means case given multiple acts.	Issue not applicable; convictions upheld under proper framework.
Lesser included offense instruction on simple criminal sodomy	Jones did not request or object; argues omission was error.	District court not required to give if evidence insufficient for lesser offense.	Omission not clearly erroneous; HF’s age (12) made simple sodomy nonviable.
Apprendi challenge to sentencing based on prior convictions	Use of prior convictions to enhance sentence violates Apprendi.	Ivory controls; no change; no need for jury findings beyond proof.	Sentence affirmed.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation requires testimonial statements to be cross-examined unless unavailable)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic lab certifications are testimonial)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (lab reports with attestations place certification within confrontation scope)
State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261 (Kan. 2007) (testimonial analysis framework refined post-Miller/Bryant)
State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 535 (Kan. 2011) (testimonial nature of SANE statements depends on primary purpose)
State v. Laturner, 289 Kan. 727 (Kan. 2009) (reliance on Melendez-Diaz for lab report testimonial status)
State v. Bennington, 293 Kan. 503 (Kan. 2011) (medical treatment statements context considered in testimoniality)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (contextual framework for statements in emergency situations)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic report tied to state action and procedures)
State v. Marquis, 292 Kan. 925 (Kan. 2011) (unified approach to confrontation issues)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (Kan. 2002) (Apprendi-applies to sentencing factors)
State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370 (Kan. 2008) (Apprendi line of cases in Kansas sentencing)