State v. Stafford, 290 P.3d 562

Stafford and Wells were jointly tried for rape and aggravated criminal sodomy involving S.W., a minor, with events spanning Aug 2006–July 2007.
Jury found Stafford guilty on two counts of rape and one count of oral aggravated criminal sodomy; Wells was convicted of rape and aggravated endangering a child and acquitted of anal sodomy.
Stafford and Wells requested separate trials; the district court denied, citing aligned defenses and shared theory of denial.
S.W. disclosed abuse to multiple witnesses; investigators relied on interviews, lineups, and drawings to corroborate claims; expert testimony explained injury timelines.
Stafford challenged multiple trial rulings on severance, witnesses, cross-examination, evidence, and sentencing, all of which the court upheld on appeal.
Court affirmed convictions and consecutive hard-25-life sentences, and declined to address unpreserved Eighth Amendment objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Severance of trials	Stafford argues prejudice from joint trial; antagonistic defenses	Wells and Stafford had different theories and should be severed	Denial upheld; no actual prejudice shown; defenses not antagonistic
Psychological examination of the child witness	Compelling circumstances justify psychological evaluation	Trial court abused discretion denying examination	No abuse; lack of corroboration and mental instability evidence; court's discretion sustained
Limiting cross-examination about penetration depth	Cross-exam should assess credibility by penetration depth	Depth relevant to credibility and injuries	Court did not abuse; testimony would have limited probative value; properly limited
Admission of S.W.'s drawings under 60-460	Drawings prove abuse; declarant unavailable for cross-examination	Drawings are hearsay and may be unavailable	Drawings admissible under 60-460(a); S.W. available for cross-examination on drawings
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing invoking post-Miranda silence	/comments about silence were improper Doyle error	No reversible misconduct; argument within permissible scope	Misconduct found but harmless; did not prejudice substantial rights

State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 (2008) (severance factors; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (determining alternative means; statutory interpretation)
State v. Lomax & Williams, 227 Kan. 651 (1980) (witness unavailable; hearsay implications under 60-460)
State v. Osby, 246 Kan. 621 (1990) (witness availability; partial trial testimony suffices for cross-exam)
State v. Clark, 223 Kan. 83 (1977) (Doyle burden; silence cannot be used to prove guilt)
State v. Edwards, 264 Kan. 177 (1998) (Doyle violation analysis framework)
State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850 (2012) (harmlessness factors for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (super-sufficiency concerns in alternative means)