State v. Smith, 327 P.3d 441

Francis Smith was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and two counts of indecent liberties with a child based on a 2008 incident involving two girls aged 13 and 15.
Smith orchestrated a photo session in which the girls wore bikini outfits and touched each other during posing; some photos showed explicit positions.
Police recovered DVDs/magazines depicting underage/explicit material from Smith’s home during a search; he admitted to owning them and faced related charges.
The State admitted prior-sex-crimes evidence (1993 convictions) to prove motive/intent; the district court admitted it, ruling it probative.
Smith challenged several sentencing issues including the use of prior convictions for sentencing, no-contact orders, lifetime electronic monitoring, and lifetime postrelease supervision.
The majority remanded for sentencing issues, including correcting error in criminal-history calculation and vacating improper postrelease/post-release supervision and no-contact orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior crimes for intent	Smith argues prior acts were unduly prejudicial and not probative of intent.	State contends 60-455(d) allows probative prior-sexual-misconduct evidence for motive/intent in sex crimes.	Prior convictions admissible to prove intent; remoteness not reversible error; error harmless.
Admissibility of pornographic covers	Smith argues cover photos were irrelevant and prejudicial.	State argues covers show Smith’s sexual desires and aid proving intent.	Admission of pornographic covers was error; harmless under the record.
Reasonable doubt instruction	Smith contends the language with 'until' and 'any' is reversible error.	State argues instruction was legally appropriate and not clearly erroneous.	Instruction not clearly erroneous; preserved and proper under governing precedent.
Remand for sentencing corrections	Smith asserts illegal counting of prior convictions raised his criminal-history score and sentencing terms require correction.	State concedes error but argues remand unnecessary or limited.	Remand for resentencing on Count III required; vacate improper sentencing components and adjust criminal-history scoring; also resolve no-contact, lifetime electronic monitoring, and lifetime post-release supervision issues.

State v. Phillips, 295 Kan. 929 (2012) (two-step framework for evidentiary relevance and admissibility)
State v. Boleyn, 297 Kan. 610 (2013) (homosexual pornography evidence and relevance; credibility impacts)
State v. Prine II, 297 Kan. 460 (2013) (prior-sexual-misconduct evidence; limits on use for intent)
State v. Wilkerson, 278 Kan. 147 (2004) (reasonable-doubt instruction with 'until' language not reversible error when read in context)
State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (2013) (legal status of 'any' vs. 'any' in reasonable-doubt instructions)
State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199 (2013) (comparison of 'any' instruction variants; legality reaffirmed)
Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921 (2014) (warning on instruction using 'each' vs. 'any' in reasonable-doubt context)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless-error framework for appellate review)
State v. LaBelle, 290 Kan. 529 (2010) (illegal sentences and void sentencing concepts)
State v. Harsh, 293 Kan. 585 (2011) (distinction between lifetime parole and lifetime postrelease supervision; parole board role)