State v. Prine, 297 Kan. 460

This appeal arises after retrial following our 2009 reversal for admission of prior-acts evidence involving a different victim.
The legislature amended K.S.A. 60-455 (effective April 30, 2009) to broaden admissibility in sex offenses.
At retrial, the State sought to use Prine’s uncharged abuses of S.M. and J.S. to prove propensity.
The district court admitted the uncharged-abuse evidence, though the retrial record of the ruling is incomplete.
Prine argued ex post facto concerns and challenges to the evidence’s admissibility.
The court held the amended statute permits propensity evidence in sex-offense trials and that the error was not reversible in this case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ex post facto applicability at retrial	Prine argues retroactive application violated the Ex Post Facto Clause	State contends no ex post facto violation under Thompson/Dobbert line of authority	Not violated; amended statute applied without unconstitutional retroactivity
Admissibility of uncharged abuses under amended 60-455(d) in sex cases	Admissibility should be limited or rejected under the new framework	Evidence admissible if relevant and probative to propensity	Admission was allowed as propensity evidence under 60-455(d); not reversible on the record

Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513 (2000) (expands admissibility of certain evidence without altering punishment)
Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 380 (1898) (post-enactment evidence rules not ex post facto when not increasing punishment)
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) (ex post facto categories described by Supreme Court)
Anderson v. Bruce, 274 Kan. 37, 50 P.3d 1 (2002) (Kansas test for when a law is retrospective and adverse to the offender)
State v. Chamberlain, 280 Kan. 241, 120 P.3d 319 (2005) (retrospective effect and punishment considerations in Kansas)