State v. Rojas-Marceleno, 285 P.3d 361

Rojas-Marceleno was convicted of one count of rape, three counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, and one count of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child, and sentenced to life without parole for 25 years plus 57 months.
The victim, a 13-year-old girl (C.V.), disclosed a lengthy sexual relationship with Rojas-Marceleno, with multiple sexual encounters; hospital and investigative interviews corroborated alleged abuse through text messages and statements.
Before trial, the district court denied a motion to compel a psychological examination of C.V. and denied a bill of particulars; several counts were dismissed after the preliminary hearing.
During trial, the State introduced evidence of prior traffic offenses by Rojas-Marceleno; defense sought a limiting instruction, which the court did not provide due to lack of proper objection.
On appeal, Rojas-Marceleno challenged restitution ordering 30 days after sentencing, and various other rulings; the State petitioned for affirmance of the convictions and sentences.
Rojas-Marceleno also argued that aggravated indecent solicitation of a child had a unanimity issue due to alleged alternative means, and challenged the restitution jurisdiction under McDaniel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to compel psychological exam	Rojas-Marceleno claims lack of veracity and mental instability justify exam.	Rojas-Marceleno asserts compelling reasons exist to examine C.V.	District court did not abuse discretion; no compelling reasons shown.
Bill of particulars	Need precise dates/ facts to prepare defense.	Amended complaint provided sufficient time frames; discovery and preliminary hearing clarified charges.	District court did not abuse discretion; bill of particulars denied.
Limiting instruction for prior traffic offenses	Juror should be told to disregard prior offenses as prejudicial.	Error in not giving limiting instruction would prejudice defense.	Issue not reviewable due to lack of contemporaneous objection; no reversible error found.
New trial based on newly discovered evidence	R.B. testimony would alter outcome if new trial granted.	Evidence could not have been discovered earlier and would impeach C.V.'s credibility.	District court did not abuse discretion; evidence not sufficiently material or could have been discovered earlier.
Restitution jurisdiction and timing	Restitution order issued after 30 days exceeded district court authority to complete sentence.	McDaniel controls; restitution is part of completing the sentence, not altering it.	District court had jurisdiction; restitution completed the sentence, not modified it.

State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568 (2010) (test for abuse of discretion in ordering a psychological examination)
State v. Price, 275 Kan. 78 (2003) (factors for compelling reasons in examination of a child witness)
State v. Gregg, 226 Kan. 481 (1979) (criteria for ordering psychological evaluation in child-sex cases)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard and factual support standard for discretion)
State v. Myatt, 237 Kan. 17 (1985) (bill of particulars and sufficiency guidelines)
State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263 (1996) (bill of particulars and preliminary information sufficiency)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (unanimity and alternative means framework for jury verdicts)
State v. Sanborn, 281 Kan. 568 (2006) (unanimity instruction not required when single act described as one crime)
State v. Armstrong, 238 Kan. 559 (1986) (time frames in sex-offense prosecutions against a minor)
State v. McDaniel, 292 Kan. 443 (2011) (restitution jurisdiction and completion of sentence; McDaniel interpretation)