State v. McCormick, 378 P.3d 543

In Jan. 2012 McCormick (age 19) hosted a basement gathering where two 13‑year‑old girls (B.P. and K.C.) and another 19‑year‑old were present; alcohol was purchased for the girls.
B.P. awakened not wearing pants, reported intoxication, underwent a rape exam, and DNA from McCormick matched DNA on B.P.'s swab; McCormick admitted intercourse with B.P.
K.C. was found extremely intoxicated and naked from the waist down by a friend (M.Z.), was transported to the hospital, and did not recall sexual activity.
McCormick was convicted by a jury of rape and unlawful hosting of minors consuming alcohol; he sought a downward departure from Jessica's Law (mandatory life with 25‑year minimum) based on mitigating factors.
At sentencing the judge cited B.P.'s extreme intoxication as an aggravating factor and stated that it "trumped" mitigators, denying a downward departure; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district judge expressly weighed an aggravating factor against mitigators in contravention of the court's Jessica's Law precedent.

Issue	State's Argument	McCormick's Argument	Held
Admissibility of testimony about K.C.'s condition	Evidence showed scene and K.C.'s intoxication, relevant to unlawful hosting and context for incident	Evidence about K.C. was irrelevant to rape of B.P. and unduly prejudicial	Evidence admissible as relevant to scene and unlawful hosting; objection on prejudice unpreserved
Consideration of aggravating factors when deciding Jessica's Law departure	Judge may consider manner/circumstances of crime (not limited to strict elements) but should not balance aggravators against mitigators per Jolly; facts here relevant	Statute bars weighing aggravators; judge should consider mitigators in context and may weigh; judge only used words, not substance	Sentencing vacated and remanded because judge explicitly said an aggravating factor "trumped" mitigators, indicating improper weighing under Jolly

State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313 (Kan. 2015) (interpreting Jessica's Law to require review of mitigating circumstances without balancing against aggravators)
State v. Wells, 289 Kan. 1219 (Kan. 2009) (procedural steps for admitting prior bad-acts evidence; distinguishes relevance and prejudice)
State v. Coones, 301 Kan. 64 (Kan. 2014) (standard for relevance: probative value and materiality)
State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796 (Kan. 2011) (Jessica's Law increases sentence and departures involve consideration of mitigators)
State v. Flynn, 274 Kan. 473 (Kan. 2002) (relevance assessed by whether evidence makes inference more probable)