State v. Schreiner, 264 P.3d 1033

Schreiner raped and sodomized his teenage daughter A.S. with multiple incidents across 2003–2005, leading to charges including rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties; the jury found Schreiner guilty on all counts and the district court imposed a controlling 343-month sentence with concurrent and consecutive components.
Rape charge defined as nonconsensual sexual intercourse with penetration of the female genitalia by a finger, the male sex organ, or any object; the statute includes language that Schreiner argues creates alternative means.
Aggravated sodomy charge alleged Schreiner forced A.S. to perform oral sex; trial instructions framed sodomy by oral contact/penetration of the female genitalia or oral contact of the male genitalia; Schreiner challenged whether multiple means were involved.
Schreiner did not object to the sodomy jury instruction at trial, and the court found invited error prevented review of the alternative means issue for the sodomy conviction.
Appellate review considered whether the closing argument misstated the law on voluntary intoxication as a defense to the August 2005 aggravated indecent liberties charge; the court assessed sentencing issues under controlling Kansas Supreme Court authority.
Overall, the court affirmed Schreiner’s convictions and sentence in all respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the rape statute create alternative means of committing the offense?	Schreiner contends the statute’s inclusion of finger, penis, or object creates alternative means.	State argues the terms function as redundant descriptors of nonconsensual penetration, not separate means.	No alternative means error; statute embraces redundancy but does not separate distinct means.
Is Schreiner entitled to reversal on the aggravated sodomy conviction for lack of evidence on an alternative means?	Schreiner argues evidence fails for one alternative means.	State asserts evidence supports the charged acts; no need to prove every means.	Invited error; because Schreiner requested the jury instruction, review of this issue is barred and conviction affirmed.
Did the prosecutor’s closing remarks on voluntary intoxication amount to reversible error?	Schreiner claims remarks misstated law and biased the jury.	State contends remarks addressed specific-intent issue and were not plain error.	No reversible prosecutorial error under standard assessing whether comments deprived fair trial; statements were brief and context dependent.
Were Schreiner’s sentencing issues correctly resolved under Kansas law?	Schreiner asserts invalid use of past convictions and jury determinations.	State relies on controlling Kansas Supreme Court authority; sentencing within guidelines affirmed.	Sentencing affirmed consistent with controlling authority.

State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793, 217 P.3d 15 (2009) (foundation for alternative means doctrine and review standards)
State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 136 P.3d 919 (2006) (articulates alternative means concept and standard of review)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 224 P.3d 1159 (2010) (unanimity and alternative means; multiple means require evidence for each means)
State v. Stevens, 285 Kan. 307, 172 P.3d 570 (2007) (general proposition on whether multiple means exist in statute language)
State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 197 P.3d 337 (2008) (invited error principle applied to jury instructions)
State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449, 255 P.3d 19 (2011) (invited error doctrine; when defendant obtains instruction, cannot complain on appeal)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (standard for assessing prosecutorial error; Ward framework for plain error)
State v. Gonzales, 253 Kan. 22, 853 P.2d 644 (1993) (voluntary intoxication to defense in specific-intent crimes)
State v. Pratt, 255 Kan. 767, 876 P.2d 1390 (1994) (legal-excuse discussion in intoxication context)