State v. Race, 259 P.3d 707

Race, a father, was charged with multiple counts of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties with a child based on acts involving four girls (T.R., A.W., J.P., C.C.) and related misconduct occurring in 2006–2007.
The State presented testimony from the victims and L.A.V. (the girls’ mother), plus police and forensic evidence including child-pornography images found on Race’s computer and printed by an investigator.
Race challenged hearsay and admissibility of child-pornography evidence; the district court admitted various items and instructed accordingly.
At trial, Race testified he was over 18 and denied the charges; the defense argued a conspiracy among the mothers.
The jury convicted Race of two rapes, three counts of aggravated sodomy, and four counts of aggravated indecent liberties involving the four girls; the court later addressed mistrial motions related to a handcuffed appearance and a juror’s absence.
The court concluded the age-element instruction error was harmless where Race testified he was over 18 and the evidence was otherwise overwhelming.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of J.P.’s allegation as hearsay	Race argues the J.P. allegation was inadmissible hearsay	Race contends the testimony was inadmissible hearsay	Overruled; admission deemed for effect on listener and with proper limiting instruction
Admission of child-pornography evidence	Evidence of uncharged crimes should have been excluded	Trial preservation and prejudicial impact considered; objection inadequately preserved	Denied preservation; court allowed evidence under proper balancing and harmless error rules
Sufficiency of evidence for second rape of A.W.	A.W.’s testimony alone supports conviction beyond reasonable doubt	Need for corroboration and demonstration of multiple penetrations	Sufficient evidence supports second rape conviction
Mistrial motions due to hallway sighting and juror absence	Mistrial warranted due to prejudice and juror exposure	Exposure was minimal and non-prejudicial	No abuse of discretion; no fundamental failure or unavoidable prejudice shown
Age element under Jessica's Law not instructed	Age 18+ was an element; jury instruction incomplete	Age evidence was uncontested and overwhelming	Harmless error; age was established by Race’s own testimony

State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842 (2010) (hearsay/limits on admissibility of out-of-court statements and effect on listener)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (two-step mistrial prejudice analysis; harmless-error framework)
State v. Dixon, 289 Kan. 46 (2009) (shackling in transit versus at trial; mistrial considerations)
State v. Cahill, 252 Kan. 309 (1993) (preservation and balancing of defendant’s rights with court security)
State v. Yurk, 203 Kan. 629 (1969) (handcuffing in hallway; presumption of innocence vs. security)
State v. Morningstar, 289 Kan. 488 (2009) (age-element instructions under statutes; harmless-error concept)