State v. WOMELSDORF, 274 P.3d 662

Womelsdorf was convicted of arson and fraudulent insurance act after a truck fire linked to her home.
State presented witness testimony, surveillance videos, and a sworn proof of loss statement tied to October 22, 2009.
Medical examiner found injuries inconsistent with Womelsdorf's kidnapping narrative; physical evidence did not show ligature marks.
Evidence showed inconsistencies between Womelsdorf’s statements and investigation findings; mortgage and financial records were admitted.
District court dismissed a false information charge; trial proceeded with arson and fraudulent insurance act charges before sentencing.
Womelsdorf timely appealed challenging sufficiency, venue, jury-question procedure, verdict-acceptance, and reasonable-doubt instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Arson sufficiency	Womelsdorf argues insufficient proof of arson and intent to defraud.	State argues circumstantial evidence supports intentional fire and fraud.	Sufficient evidence supported arson beyond reasonable doubt.
Fraudulent insurance act venue	Venue improper because act occurred in Johnson County; complaint targeted Anderson County.	Arson in Anderson County was requisite to the fraudulent act in Johnson County; venue proper.	Venue proper in Anderson County; the act linked via requisite arson.
Response to jury question	Written response outside open court violated 22-3420(3) and defendants’ rights.	No reversible error; error if any was harmless.	Harmless error; procedure did not affect outcome; no reversal.
Jury-verdict acceptance procedure	Judge failed to inquire into verdict accuracy per 22-3421; improper acceptance.	No prejudice; jury unanimity suggested by foreman; polling not required.	Failure to inquire was reversible error in Holt line, but here not prejudicial; affirmed due to unanimity evidence and lack of harm.
Reasonable-doubt instruction	Instruction misstates law by using 'any' rather than 'each' in critical clause.	Instruction was substantially correct; Beck/Miller distinctions apply; no clear error.	Not clearly erroneous; instruction not reversible error; affirmed.

State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (2011) (sufficiency review standard)
State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614 (2008) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency)
State v. Boorigie, 273 Kan. 18 (2002) (venue for linked offenses; requisite acts)
State v. Bell, 266 Kan. 896 (1999) (jury-question procedure; presence requirement)
State v. Holt, 285 Kan. 760 (2008) (polling requirement; waiver upon lack of prejudice)
State v. Beck, 32 Kan.App.2d 784 (2004) (reasonable-doubt instruction phrasing)
State v. Johnson, 40 Kan.App.2d 1059 (2008) (first-time appeal challenge to polling)
State v. Dunlap, 46 Kan.App.2d 924 (2011) (polling issue discussed on appeal)