State v. Spear, 297 Kan. 780

Spear was convicted of six counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and acquitted of four counts; the convictions were challenged on multiple grounds.
The trial admitted evidence of Spear’s alleged prior sexual misconduct to show intent and absence of mistake or accident; the court’s ruling followed evolving statutory guidance.
The State sought to prove all counts based on a time frame linked to L.S.’s statements, with a bill of particulars detailing acts in late Aug.–Sept. 2007 in Reno County.
Evidence included videotaped interviews, police and medical testimony, and Spear’s statements; the defense did not testify.
The court ultimately sentenced Spear to six concurrent life sentences, with a mandatory minimum for Count 1; four counts were later reversed on appeal.
The court vacated lifetime postrelease supervision but affirmed the convictions and sentences for Counts 1–2 while vacating Counts 3–6.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of prior acts evidence	Spear; prior acts prove propensity.	Evidence admissible only for intent/mistake under 60-455; improper.	Error not reversible under 60-261; admissible under amended statute.
Sufficiency of four counts	Evidence supports six counts.	Only two acts proven; 11-minute guess inadequate.	Counts 3–6 reversed for lack of sufficient, distinguishable evidence.
Constitutional validity of life sentences	Sentence violates § 9; disproportionate.	Jessica’s Law justified; factors weigh in defendant’s favor.	Not unconstitutional when considering Freeman factors collectively.
Lifetime post-release supervision	Court erred by imposing lifetime post-release supervision.	Parole distinction separate from sentence; post-release supervision improper.	Vacate lifetime post-release supervision portion; parole governs release.

State v. Prine, 287 Kan. 713, 200 P.3d 1 (2009) (prior acts evidence and 60-455 amendments discussed; reversible error not required on retrial)
State v. Prine, 297 Kan. 460, 303 P.3d 662 (2013) (Prine II: amendments permit propensity evidence but not reversible error absent impact on substantial rights)
State v. Newcomb, 296 Kan. 1012, 298 P.3d 285 (2013) (§ 9 analysis; second Freeman factor considerations)
State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717, 280 P.3d 203 (2012) (Jessica’s Law penalties not automatically unconstitutional; comparators considered)
State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 574 P.2d 950 (1978) (three-factor test for proportionality under § 9)
State v. Summers, 293 Kan. 819, 272 P.3d 1 (2012) (parole vs. post-release supervision distinction clarified)
State v. Harsh, 293 Kan. 585, 265 P.3d 1161 (2011) (parole considerations in off-grid sentences)
State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 194 P.3d 1195 (2008) (contextual considerations in sentencing)