State v. Ochs, 297 Kan. 1094

Eric Ochs (21) was convicted by a jury of rape of 11-year-old D.T. (K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2)), an off-grid person felony; sentenced to a "hard 25" life term under K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(1)(B).
Facts: Ochs was babysitting D.T.; she testified he entered her room, removed clothing, digitally penetrated her, then had intercourse; she reported pain and blood the next morning.
Investigative evidence: Ochs made post-arrest statements to police admitting some contact; KBI testing found sperm on blankets matching Ochs’ DNA and mixed DNA consistent with sexual contact.
Defense: Ochs testified he lied to police about masturbating and touching D.T. to explain DNA and to obtain treatment; highlighted victim’s mental-health history and prior false allegation against an uncle.
Procedural posture: Ochs appealed, arguing (1) prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal closing (improper "truth"/bolstering argument) and (2) his Jessica’s Law "hard 25" sentence violated § 9 (cruel or unusual punishment) of the Kansas Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ochs)	Held
Prosecutor's rebuttal comment that the victim brought "the truth" to court was misconduct	Comments were fair argument about evidence and responsive to defense attack on credibility	Comments improperly bolstered witness, vouched for truth, and urged conviction to "protect" victim	Court: Comments were prosecutorial misconduct but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed
Harmless-error standard applicable	State: any error was harmless under both Chapman and K.S.A. 60-261	Ochs: misconduct was prejudicial in a credibility contest and requires reversal	Court: Under Chapman, evidence (DNA, prior statements, defendant’s changing story) shows no reasonable possibility error affected verdict; harmless; no need to reach K.S.A. 60-261
Sentence under Jessica’s Law (hard 25) violates § 9 (cruel or unusual)	State: statute constitutional per controlling precedent	Ochs: hard 25 is grossly disproportionate to his offense/character; would be better off for murder in some scenarios	Court: Applied Freeman three-part test; sentence is not disproportionate—offense violent; breach of trust; Kansas’ scheme comparable to other jurisdictions; sentence upheld

State v. Smith, 296 Kan. 111 (prosecutor may not claim sole possession of "the truth" in closing)
State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850 (framework for assessing prosecutorial misconduct and responses to defense argument)
State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (dual harmlessness analysis and burden on party benefitting from error)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (Chapman harmlessness—error harmless only if no reasonable possibility it contributed to verdict)
State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47 (improper for prosecutor to comment on witness credibility as "the truth")
State v. Seward, 296 Kan. 979 (Jessica’s Law sentencing survives § 9 review; Freeman framework applied)
State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 (upholding severe penalties under Jessica’s Law; comparison to homicide penalties)
State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 (three-part test for disproportionality under § 9)