State v. Rollins, 257 P.3d 839

Rollins was convicted by jury of theft, a severity level 9 nonperson felony, and sentenced to 11 months in prison with no postrelease supervision.
Wall Ties and Forms reported that two pallets of aluminum forms were stolen; surveillance videos showed Rollins loading the skids into a van.
During trial, the State introduced daytime surveillance video and Rollins objected; the district court overruled the objections.
Rollins’ timesheet showed arrival at 4:20 p.m. and departure at 10:47 p.m. on July 31, 2008, with absences on subsequent days; the timesheet was contested as undisclosed in discovery.
Rollins testified he delivered goods to BRB Contractors in Missouri and later took extended leave due to family issues; a Wall Ties official testified inconsistencies regarding such delivery.
The State presented rebuttal testimony from Wall Ties personnel disputing Rollins’ story and indicating Rollins had limited vacation rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether obtaining and exerting are distinct means	Rollins contends obtaining and exerting are distinct means requiring unanimity.	Rollins argues they are indistinguishable as a single conduct.	Not an issue; terms describe same conduct; not an alternative means.
Presence at all critical stages when jury dismissed	Rollins asserts denial of presence during jury dismissal violated rights.	State contends no preservation and dismissal was not a critical stage.	Any error, if present, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Admission of undisclosed timesheet	Rollins claims admission violated discovery and due process.	State argues trial court has discretion to admit undisclosed material absent prejudice.	District court did not abuse discretion; discovery violation did not prejudice Rollins.
Foundation for testimony about surveillance videos	Rollins argues lack of proper foundation for video contents.	State asserts witnesses had personal knowledge and proper foundation.	Substantial competent evidence supported admission of testimony regarding video contents.
Cumulative error	Rollins claims multiple errors cumulatively denied a fair trial.	State argues no merit given overwhelming evidence.	Cumulative error claim rejected; no reversible error.

State v. Kesselring, 279 Kan. 671 (2005) (unanimity/alternative means framework for theft)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (rational juror could find each means beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842 (2010) (unanimity not required on means; substantial evidence suffices)
State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 (2009) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113 (2005) (presence at critical stages aligns with due process)
State v. McGinnes, 266 Kan. 121 (1998) (ex parte communications and harmless error analysis factors)
State v. Colbert, 257 Kan. 896 (1995) (disclosed evidence during trial not suppressed if nonprejudicial)
State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227 (2006) (foundation for surveillance footage testimony and exhibits)
State v. Kunellis, 276 Kan. 461 (2003) (theft completed at obtaining control; continuation considerations)