State v. McCaslin, 245 P.3d 1030

McCaslin was convicted of first‑degree premeditated murder, rape, and aggravated arson for the death of Angela Duran‑Ortiz.
The body was found after a fire; DNA from McCaslin was found inside the victim.
McCaslin concealed evidence, changed clothes, and discarded items after the homicide and fire.
Phoned records and testimony placed McCaslin at or near the scene around the time of death.
The trial court sentenced McCaslin to hard 50 for murder and concurrent terms for rape and arson, to run consecutively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of confrontation/hearsay objections	McCaslin contends hearsay and Confrontation Clause issues were preserved.	State failed to preserve these grounds with timely, specific objections.	Not preserved for appeal; evidentiary grounds require contemporaneous, specific objections.
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Evidence tied rape, arson, and murder; rape supports others via inference.	If rape is insufficient, murder and arson collapse as theory.	Sufficient evidence supports all three convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutorial misconduct	Multiple cross‑examination questions and rebuttal remarks were improper.	Prosecutor acted with ill will and committed misconduct affecting fairness.	Some conduct was improper and gross; however, cumulative impact did not require reversal.
Hard 50 sentencing and enhancement factors	Hard 50 upheld; offenses and aggravators supported by evidence.	Issues constitutionality and jury requirement for enhancing facts.	Hard 50 constitutional; enhanced consecutive sentences properly imposed; reviewing court lacks jurisdiction over presumptive grids.
Cumulative error	Challenged cumulative impact of prosecutorial conduct.	Cumulative errors denied fair trial requiring reversal.	Cumulative error did not deny a fair trial; convictions affirmed.

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (non-testimonial hearsay not subject to Confrontation Clause)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004) (testimonial statements require confrontation unless exception applies)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. _ (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (defendant bears burden to raise Confrontation Clause objections; relevance of objections)
State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (contests on appeal require contemporaneous specific objections; evidentiary vs. prosecutorial grounds)
State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 231 P.3d 558 (2010) (contemporaneous objection rule; preserving issues)
State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 212 P.3d 165 (2009) (standard for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct and harmless error)
State v. Bryant, 285 Kan. 970, 179 P.3d 1122 (2008) (three-factor test for determining need for new trial in prosecutorial misconduct cases)
State v. Laturner, 289 Kan. 727, 218 P.3d 23 (2009) (objections to Confrontation Clause with evolving standards)