State v. Sprung, 277 P.3d 1100

Sprung, a pastor, was convicted of one count aggravated criminal sodomy, two counts aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and one count criminal threat for abuses against 10-year-old K.M. in 2006 at the church and Sprung's office.
Evidence showed repeated touching and digital penetration by Sprung during multiple visits, with K.M. reporting incidents after Friends Club and to her mother in early 2006.
Corroborating testimony came from Fran Garrison (Friends Club director) and medical testimony from Susan Reinert; timing and locations placed the acts in Sprung's office, often after youth group events.
Sprung testified denies and describes touching as hugs; he acknowledged certain conduct like knocking on K.M.’s window and seeking a house key, claiming a Christian, non-sexual intent.
On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions and dismissed sentencing challenge for lack of jurisdiction; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
Key issues at review include multiplicity of two aggravated indecent liberties convictions, prosecutorial misconduct, denial of a motion to compel a psychological examination, and a sentencing challenge under presumptive-sentence rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Sprung's two indecent-liberties convictions multiplicitous?	Sprung argues same conduct violated one unit.	State argues two distinct acts under statute justify two units.	Convictions are multiplicitous; the unit of prosecution is one.
Did prosecutorial comments affect trial outcome?	Prosecutor improperly attacked credibility of victim, expert, and investigator.	Comments were within closing and did not prejudicially affect outcome.	Statements did not affect the outcome; not plain error beyond reasonable doubt.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a psych examination of the victim?	Compelling circumstances existed based on veracity concerns and corroboration gaps.	No compelling circumstances shown; examination unwarranted.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Is Sprung's sentence reviewable for the aggravated sodomy conviction?	Aggravating factors must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.	Issue preserved for federal review; yet jurisdictional rule applies.	Appeals court correctly dismissed sentencing challenge for lack of jurisdiction.

State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 (2006) (multiplicity framework for same-act offenses; unit of prosecution analysis)
State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 117 (2011) (de novo review of multiplicity; agnostic to number of victims)
State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238 (2009) (unit of prosecution; any implied unifying intent supports single unit)
State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568 (2010) (factors for compelling circumstances to order psych evaluation)
State v. Price, 275 Kan. 78 (2003) (psych evaluation standards; abuse of discretion context)
State v. Gregg, 226 Kan. 481 (1979) (historical framework for competency and evidentiary considerations)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (presumptive-sentencing review standards; plain-error considerations)
State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55 (2011) (harmless-error standard in prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824 (2008) (applies to appellate jurisdiction over presumptive sentences)