State v. Manczuk, 126901

Background

In 2022, Kansas charged Manczuk with rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and sexual exploitation of a child based on alleged sexual abuse of two minors years earlier, later adding solicitation to commit capital murder. 1
Before trial, Manczuk moved to dismiss the sex-offense charges as time-barred, but he withdrew the limitations defense to rape and aggravated criminal sodomy while maintaining it for sexual exploitation. 2
After the State amended the charging dates and the jury convicted him on all counts, Manczuk renewed a different statute-of-limitations theory in posttrial motions. 3
The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review on preservation, sufficiency, solicitation, and cumulative-error issues. 4
Manczuk argued on appeal that the sex-offense convictions were time-barred and that the limitations issue could be recast as sufficiency or jurisdictional error. 5
The court held the limitations defense was unpreserved, the sufficiency challenge was an improper attempt to revive it, and the solicitation conviction was supported by the evidence and valid instruction. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Manczuk’s statute-of-limitations defense preserved? 7	Manczuk says he preserved it by raising limitations below.	The State says he changed theories and waived the defense.	No; the new posttrial limitations theory was unpreserved. 8
Did limitations deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction? 9	Manczuk says time-barred charges are jurisdictionally barred.	The State says limitations is a waivable affirmative defense.	No; limitations is not jurisdictional. 10
Could Manczuk recast the unpreserved limitations issue as insufficient evidence? 11	Manczuk says the State failed to prove timely prosecution.	The State says this is just an unpreserved limitations claim.	No; sufficiency cannot revive a waived limitations defense. 12
Was the solicitation-to-commit-capital-murder conviction supported by sufficient evidence? 13	Manczuk says the instruction made self-solicitation the theory.	The State says he solicited another person to kill the victims.	Yes; the evidence supported solicitation of another person. 14
Did the solicitation instruction create a legally impossible crime? 15	Manczuk says the instruction allowed self-solicitation.	The State says the charge and instruction tracked the statute.	No; the offense was legally valid and not self-solicitation. 16
Did cumulative error require reversal? 17	Manczuk says combined errors denied a fair trial.	The State says there were no reversible errors.	No; cumulative error does not apply. 18

Key Cases Cited

State v. Anderson, 321 Kan. 549 (Kan. 2026) (preservation is reviewed de novo 19)
State v. Williams, 311 Kan. 88 (Kan. 2020) (an issue must be raised below and on the same legal theory 20)
State v. Scheetz, 318 Kan. 48 (Kan. 2024) (a party cannot raise one ground below and a different one on appeal 21)
State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475 (Kan. 2010) (appellate courts do not make factual findings 22)
State v. Holt, 298 Kan. 469 (Kan. 2013) (affirmative defenses must be presented when facts can still be resolved 23)
State v. Gleason, 315 Kan. 222 (Kan. 2022) (statute of limitations is a waivable affirmative defense, not jurisdictional 24)
State v. Valdiviezo-Martinez, 313 Kan. 614 (Kan. 2021) (limitations defense is waived if not timely raised 25)
State v. Aguirre, 313 Kan. 189 (Kan. 2021) (sufficiency review asks whether a rational fact-finder could convict 26)
State v. DePriest, 258 Kan. 596 (Kan. 1995) (solicitation is complete when communicated to another with the requisite mens rea 27)
State v. Stewart, 306 Kan. 237 (Kan. 2017) (invited error bars challenge to a requested instruction 28)
State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689 (Kan. 2018) (Kansas generally does not review invited instructional error 29)
State v. Gutierrez, 285 Kan. 332 (Kan. 2007) (illustrates logical impossibility analysis in criminal law 30)
State v. Collins, 257 Kan. 408 (Kan. 1995) (example of a logically impossible offense theory 31)
State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 (Kan. 2021) (distinguishes challenges to statutory offenses from instructional wording 32)
State v. Alfaro-Valleda, 314 Kan. 526 (Kan. 2022) (cumulative error requires multiple errors and substantial prejudice 33)
State v. Gallegos, 313 Kan. 262 (Kan. 2021) (no cumulative error absent multiple errors 34)
State v. Waldschmidt, 318 Kan. 633 (Kan. 2024) (unpreserved instructional error not clearly erroneous cannot be aggregated 35)