State v. Nice, 123316

Victim (born 1999) reported in Oct 2016 that Van Nice, who lived with her family and acted as a stepfather/learning coach, had sexually abused her beginning at about age 4 or 5 and continuing until about age 16.
Forensic interview at the Child Advocacy Center produced a recorded interview and a timeline/diagram of repeated incidents; both were admitted at trial.
Charges filed in 2019: originally two counts of aggravated indecent liberties (one later dismissed), two counts of rape (based on digital penetration), and one count of aggravated sexual battery.
Trial (Feb 2020) resulted in convictions on the submitted counts; defendant was sentenced to a controlling term of 481 months.
Defendant died after filing the appeal; the court retained the appeal and reviewed sufficiency of the evidence because a successful challenge could lead to exoneration.
Key trial evidence supporting convictions: long-term pattern of abuse, testimony that Van Nice kissed victim with his tongue, instances of isolation and secrecy, victim statements she felt forced/"couldn't speak," and fear of losing home/family if she reported abuse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that indecent liberties kiss was done with intent to arouse	Evidence of long-term pattern, nature of touching (tongue kiss), secrecy, isolation, and context show intent	Van Nice: State failed to prove specific intent to arouse from the kiss	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (pattern, nature, isolation) permits inference of intent to arouse
Sufficiency of evidence that rape and aggravated sexual battery occurred when victim was "overcome by force or fear"	Victim's testimony about powerlessness, statements she was "forced"/"made me," fear of losing home/family, and history of nonreporting support being overcome by force or fear	Van Nice: Victim was not overcome by force or fear — no overt threats or physical resistance shown	Affirmed — subjective fear/force question for jury; evidence supported conclusion victim was overcome by force or fear
Appeal survivability after defendant's death	State implicitly: appeal may be retained per precedent where reversal could exonerate defendant	Van Nice (through counsel): continued review asserted; death does not moot claim where potential exoneration exists	Court retained appeal under Kansas precedent and adjudicated sufficiency on the merits

State v. Ta, 296 Kan. 230 (definition of "lewd" for indecent liberties)
State v. Rutherford, 39 Kan. App. 2d 767 (intent to arouse may be shown circumstantially; kissing facts)
State v. Stout, 34 Kan. App. 2d 83 (kissing with tongue can be lewd)
State v. Colson, 312 Kan. 739 (standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence in sufficiency review)
State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494 (nonexclusive factors for sexual intent: pattern, places touched, nature, secrecy, isolation)
State v. Clark, 298 Kan. 843 (same list of factors for inferring sexual intent)
State v. Tully, 293 Kan. 176 ("force or fear" is subjective; jury question)
State v. Borthwick, 255 Kan. 899 (victim need not physically resist; fear can satisfy "overcome by force or fear")
State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 (definition of "overcome" as overpower, subdue, affect strongly)
State v. Belt, 305 Kan. 381 (retention of appeals after defendant's death in cases where reversal could exonerate)
State v. Hollister, 300 Kan. 458 (same procedural guidance on appeals after death)
State v. Aguirre, 313 Kan. 189 (sufficiency-of-evidence review standard)
State v. Stoll, 312 Kan. 726 (unlimited review for statutory interpretation)