State v. Rodman, 383 P.3d 187

Defendant Michael W. Rodman was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child (victim age 5–6) and sentenced to a hard 40 term with lifetime supervision.
Facts: mother observed victim in front of Rodman on the couch with her pants down; victim told mother and law enforcement that Rodman had her touch his penis to "wake it up" and that he touched her genitals; victim and a forensic nurse described and the child drew differences between an erect and flaccid penis.
The State introduced a photocopy of the victim’s drawing (original unavailable) after the forensic nurse testified the copy was a fair and accurate representation; defense objected under the best evidence rule and as cumulative.
The State also read a joint stipulation to the jury establishing Rodman’s 2002 conviction for aggravated indecent liberties with an 8‑year‑old; defense objected to admission of the prior conviction as unduly prejudicial and irrelevant to propensity.
District court admitted both the photocopy and the stipulation (granting the State’s K.S.A. 60‑455(d) motion) with only brief reasoning; defense renewed objections and moved for acquittal/new trial after conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of photocopy under best evidence rule	Copy admissible because original lost; nurse verified copy accurate; best evidence rule is preferential	Copy inadmissible because original not produced; admission prejudicial and not excepted	Court held exception for lost original applied; admission not erroneous and harmless
Cumulative evidence objection to drawing	Drawing not cumulative; helped show child knew erect vs flaccid; probative	Cumulative—nurse already testified to drawing contents; unfair prejudice	Court found no prejudice; contents already in testimony; admission harmless
Admission of prior sexual‑offense conviction under K.S.A. 60‑455(d) (propensity)	Prior conviction is similar sexual offense, probative of intent/propensity; admissible subject to balancing	Not sufficiently similar (touching roles differ); highly prejudicial; should be excluded	Court found prior offense relevant and similar; should have performed detailed balancing but any error was harmless; admission affirmed
Harmless‑error analysis for evidentiary rulings	Even if errors occurred, overwhelming evidence of guilt made any error harmless	Errors affected substantial rights and require reversal	Court held any error harmless given strong evidence; conviction affirmed

State v. Page, 303 Kan. 548, 363 P.3d 391 (defines relevance standards: materiality de novo; probativity abuse of discretion)
State v. Bowen, 299 Kan. 339, 323 P.3d 853 (articulates factors for balancing propensity evidence under K.S.A. 60‑455(d))
State v. Longstaff, 296 Kan. 884, 299 P.3d 268 (harmless‑error standard for erroneous admission of evidence)
State v. Goodwin, 223 Kan. 257, 573 P.2d 999 (best evidence rule is preferential; copies admissible when reliability not questioned)
State v. Prine, 297 Kan. 460, 303 P.3d 662 (prior sexual conduct admissible to rebut defenses like mistake or lack of intent)
State v. Robinson, 303 Kan. 11, 363 P.3d 875 (discussion of standard of review for best evidence challenges)