State v. King, 299 Kan. 372

Background

Defendant Chris King lived with niece R.B. and her brother; R.B. later reported repeated sexual abuse by King between Sept. 2007 and Jan. 2008.
R.B. testified to over 20 incidents in three locations (bedroom, bathroom, couch); the State also proved 11 discrete dates when King had opportunity to be alone with the children.
King was charged with four counts: rape by penile penetration, rape by digital penetration, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties; jury convicted on all counts.
Trial included testimony about a prior allegation by another girl (J.B.) for which King had been acquitted; the trial court admitted that prior-allegation evidence.
The trial court excluded evidence of earlier sexual-allegation reports R.B. made about two juveniles and evidence about R.B.’s mother’s sexual-abuse history; King also sought a downward departure under Jessica’s Law and was denied.
On appeal the Kansas Supreme Court reversed all convictions because the trial court failed to give a unanimity instruction in a multiple-acts case and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (King)	Held
Whether evidence presented showed multiple, factually separate acts requiring a unanimity instruction	The State argued King generally denied the allegations, so no unanimity instruction was required	King argued testimony showed many distinct incidents/dates and locations, so jury must agree on specific act for each count	Court: Multiple-acts evidence existed (different times/locations); failure to elect or give unanimity instruction required reversal of convictions
Admission of prior-allegation evidence (J.B.) acquitted earlier	State argued prior allegation evidence showed plan/modus operandi and under amended K.S.A. 60-455(d) could be admissible	King argued evidence inadmissible due to prior acquittal and risk of unfair prejudice/collateral estoppel	Court: Admission questionable; but under new 60-455(d) such evidence may be admissible on retrial; trial court must analyze collateral estoppel given prior acquittal
Exclusion of R.B.’s prior sexual-allegation reports against juveniles (rape-shield)	State maintained exclusion appropriate given vagueness and statutory protection of victim’s prior sexual conduct	King argued those allegations could explain R.B.’s sexual knowledge and behaviors, rebutting State’s theory	Court: Remand may allow district court to reassess relevance with more information; exclusion might change on retrial if probative and not vague
Denial of downward durational departure under Jessica’s Law (K.S.A. 21-4643)	State argued statute precluded departure absent unconstitutionality	King argued judge could consider mitigating factors because he had no prior criminal history and statute permits departures under subsection (d)	Court: Trial judge erred to conclude departures categorically precluded; departures permitted where statute authorizes and circumstances warrant; guidance for resentencing given

Key Cases Cited

State v. Voyles, 284 Kan. 239 (multiple-acts/unanimity requirement and reversible error analysis)
State v. Colston, 290 Kan. 952 (unitary conduct factors; single sodomy act vs multiple-acts analysis)
State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625 (standard for reviewing failure to give unanimity instruction)
State v. Irons, 230 Kan. 138 (collateral estoppel and effect of prior acquittal on admissibility of prior-offense evidence)
State v. Prine, 297 Kan. 460 (admission of prior sexual-misconduct evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 and amended subsection permitting propensity evidence)
State v. Searles, 246 Kan. 567 (distinguishing issues underlying acquittal to assess admissibility of same conduct later)
State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 (standards for relevance/probative value review in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Jolly, 291 Kan. 842 (interpretation of Jessica’s Law departures)