State v. Torres, 273 P.3d 729

Torres was convicted of two counts of rape against his 11-year-old housemate, V.H., in Wichita.
The State admitted evidence of Torres' 1988 indecent liberties with a child conviction to show plan, which the court later found to be improper under 60-455.
Evidence was admitted under 60-455 to prove plan despite general propensity concerns; the court applied a three-part test from Inkelaar for admissibility.
The district court found the prior conduct relevant to plan and gave a limiting instruction; the State did not brief preservation of some arguments.
The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial due to the erroneous admission of Billie T.’s testimony about prior conduct, finding it not sufficiently similar to the charged acts.
The decision also addressed jury instructions and held some issues moot on sentencing since retrial is required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the prior-conviction evidence properly admitted?	Torres	Torres	No; admission improper under 60-455 and Prine signature standard
Did the district court err in admitting Billie T.'s testimony to prove plan?	Torres	State	Yes; not sufficiently similar to be a signature; reversible error
Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	Torres	State	No; not harmless given credibility issues and lack of corroboration
Were the jury instructions with an Allen-type instruction and the unanimity instruction error-free?	Torres	State	Allen-type: no clear error deemed in retrial; unanimity instruction: upheld with potential for modification

State v. Prine, 287 Kan. 713, 200 P.3d 1 (2009) (signature-style requirement for 60-455 plan evidence)
State v. Jones, 277 Kan. 413, 85 P.3d 1226 (2004) (method similarity standard for plan evidence)
State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 264 P.3d 81 (2011) (three-part test for admissibility of prior conduct under 60-455)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Moore, 274 Kan. 639, 55 P.3d 903 (2002) (illustrates plan-evidence admissibility factors)
State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816, 987 P.2d 1080 (1999) (sufficient similarity for plan evidence in sexual offenses)
State v. Damewood, 245 Kan. 676, 783 P.2d 1249 (1989) (early articulation of plan-similarity concept)
State v. Overton, 279 Kan. 547, 112 P.3d 244 (2005) (held similarity supporting plan evidence)
State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) (harmless-error standards in evidentiary reversal context)
State v. Sanborn, 281 Kan. 568, 132 P.3d 1277 (2006) (unanimity considerations for multiple acts)
State v. Colston, 290 Kan. 952, 235 P.3d 1234 (2010) (unanimity concept and multiple acts per count)
State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (briefing and preservation principles in appellate review)