State v. Prine
Annotate this CaseIn 2004, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, concluding that the district judge had erred by admitting evidence of Defendant's sexual abuse of two victims other than the one making the allegations underlying this case pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455. The legislature responded to the Court's decision by amending section 60-455. At Defendant's retrial, the district judge apparently applied the amended statute to admit the same disputed evidence. Defendant was against convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the application of the amended version of section 60-455 at Defendant's retrial did not violate the federal constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws; and (2) the district judge erred by admitting evidence of Defendant's uncharged sexual abuse of two victims under the amended version of section 60-455, but reversal was not required because the evidence would come in as relevant to Defendant's propensity to abuse the victim in this case under the new section 60-455(d).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.