Title: State v. Magallanez
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 99694
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 16, 2010

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
Nos. 99,694 
        99,695 
        99,696 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
RAUL MANUEL MAGALLANEZ, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
1. 
 
On appeal, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument are 
analyzed in two steps. First, the court must determine whether the comments were 
outside the wide latitude allowed in discussing the evidence. Second, the court must 
decide whether those comments constitute plain error; that is, whether the statements 
prejudiced the jury against the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial, thereby 
requiring reversal. In this case, the prosecutor committed misconduct in vouching for the 
credibility of State witnesses and in diluting the prosecution's burden of proof. 
 
2. 
 
When a party fails to object to the giving of an instruction, an appellate court 
reviews the issue under the clearly erroneous standard. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
3. 
A shotgun instruction under K.S.A. 60-455 is rarely proper and increases the risk 
of error. In this case, the shotgun instruction was overbroad. District judges should not 
instruct upon any K.S.A. 60-455 factor that is obviously inapplicable. 
 
4. 
Multiple steps are required in appellate analysis of evidentiary rulings. These steps 
must be followed for evidence that may be covered by the rape shield statute. The first 
issue is relevance, which has two components, materiality and probativeness. Materiality 
concerns whether the fact to be proved has a legitimate and effective bearing on the 
decision of the case. The appellate standard of review for materiality is de novo. On 
probativeness, the question is whether the offered evidence has any tendency in reason to 
prove a disputed material fact. An appellate court reviews probativity for abuse of 
discretion. Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and 
exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's 
discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question. When the adequacy of the 
legal basis of a district judge's decision on admission or exclusion of evidence is 
questioned, an appellate court reviews the decision de novo. The contours of the rule in 
question in this case are found in the rape shield statute. 
 
5. 
 
On the facts of this prosecution for child sexual abuse, the rape shield statute did 
not bar admission of a redacted portion of a letter from the victim to the defendant. The 
redacted portion dealt not only with the victim's sexual history but also with her 
admission that she had been untruthful about it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
6. 
 
Aggravated indecent liberties is not a lesser included offense of rape. If a jury is 
incorrectly instructed on this point and it convicts of aggravated indecent liberties, the 
conviction must be reversed for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant cannot be retried 
because conviction on a lesser offense, even if arrived at in error, is a de facto acquittal 
on the greater offense. 
 
7. 
 
The inclusion of the phrase "another trial would be a burden on both sides" in an 
Allen-type instruction given before jury deliberations begin is error. 
 
8. 
 
Cumulative trial errors, when considered collectively, may be so great as to 
require reversal of the defendant's conviction. The test is whether the totality of the 
circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied him or her a fair trial. 
No prejudicial error may be found under the cumulative effect rule if the evidence is 
overwhelming against a defendant. On the record in this case, five trial errors require 
reversal of the defendant's convictions under the cumulative error doctrine. 
 
Appeal from Lyon District Court; W. LEE FOWLER, judge. Opinion filed July 16, 2010. Reversed 
and remanded.   
 
Carl Folsom III, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for 
appellant. 
 
Amy L. Aranda, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Goodman, county attorney, 
and Steve Six, attorney general, were with her on the briefs for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
BEIER, J.: Raul Manuel Magallanez appeals his jury convictions in three child 
sexual abuse cases tried together by the district court. The district judge sentenced 
Magallanez to life imprisonment in 06 CR 681, consecutive to a total of 904 months in 07 
CR 94 and 07 CR 95. Magallanez filed this timely appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 
K.S.A. 22-3601(b)(1). 
 
Magallanez raises 15 issues. The following five are dispositive under the 
cumulative error doctrine: 
 
(1)  Whether the State committed reversible prosecutorial misconduct in closing 
argument by vouching for the credibility of witnesses, diluting its burden of 
proof, attempting to inflame the passions of the jury, and misstating the law; 
 
(2)  Whether the limiting instruction on prior crimes or civil wrongs was 
overbroad; 
 
(3) Whether the district judge misapplied the rape shield statute by excluding 
relevant evidence concerning J.P.'s credibility and veracity; 
 
(4) Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict Magallanez of 
aggravated indecent liberties with a child in Counts 24 and 34 of 07 CR 94; 
and 
 
(5) Whether the district judge erred in giving an Allen-type instruction to the jury. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
J.P. – 06 CR 681 
 
J.P. was 13 years old in the fall of 2006 when she met Magallanez through a 
mutual friend. Magallanez was 31 years old but spent much of his time with teenagers. 
J.P. and Magallanez got to know each other over a few weeks by exchanging phone calls, 
text messages, and e-mail and through social networking websites like MySpace.com. 
 
On October 4, 2006, J.P. arranged to meet Magallanez after school. Magallanez 
picked J.P. up in his car and they drove to the zoo. J.P.'s brother saw them together and 
told his parents. J.P.'s parents took away her cell phone for a week and told her to stop 
seeing Magallanez. But, when J.P. got her cell phone back, she and Magallanez resumed 
their frequent calls and texts. J.P. testified that, on November 1, 2006, J.P. left the home 
where she was babysitting to meet Magallanez in his car and had sexual intercourse with 
him in the backseat. 
 
In late November, the weekend after Thanksgiving, J.P. spent the night with her 
friends D.D. and H.H. at D.D.'s sister's house to babysit. Late that evening, J.P. snuck out 
of the house to see Magallanez, who was at a nearby park. D.D.'s sister found out, and the 
story eventually made its way back to J.P.'s mother. The next day, J.P.'s mother 
confronted her, and J.P. eventually said that she had had sex with Magallanez on October 
4 at the zoo. J.P. also reported to the police and later to personnel at the Child Advocacy 
Center that she had sexual intercourse with Magallanez on October 4. 
 
On December 7, 2006, Magallanez was arrested and charged with rape (sexual 
intercourse with a child under the age of 14), a Jessica's Law offense. At the preliminary 
hearing in this case, J.P. testified under oath that she had had sex with Magallanez on 
October 4. But, on August 7, 2007, while meeting with the prosecutor in preparation for 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
 
trial, J.P. disclosed that she had lied about the date and location of the sexual intercourse 
with Magallanez. She then said she had had sexual intercourse with Magallanez at 
approximately 8 p.m. on November 21, 2006, in Magallanez' car outside the house where 
she was babysitting. 
 
The same day that J.P. changed her story, the State filed a motion to amend its 
complaint to change the date of occurrence from October 4 to November 1, 2006. The 
district judge granted the State's motion the next day, over defense counsel's objection. 
Trial began 3 days later. The jury convicted Magallanez of rape of J.P., and the district 
judge sentenced him to life in prison under Jessica's Law. The trial court ordered the 
sentence to run consecutive to the sentences in the two other cases consolidated for trial. 
 
S.S. – 07 CR 94 
 
In the fall of 2005, S.S. was 14 years old and dating Magallanez' nephew, D.S. 
About half the time, D.S. lived with Magallanez and Magallanez' mother. S.S. would 
sneak out of her house at night to see D.S. About September 2005, S.S. started spending 
more time alone with Magallanez. S.S. testified that Magallanez began providing her 
with alcohol and marijuana on a regular basis. 
 
In October 2005, S.S. and Magallanez began having sexual intercourse and 
engaged in sexual activities numerous times through October 2006. S.S. testified that 
Magallanez always provided S.S. with alcohol before having sexual intercourse with her 
and that she would get so intoxicated she could barely walk or see straight. S.S. continued 
to see D.S. and claimed that, on one occasion, Magallanez videotaped S.S. and D.S. 
engaging in sexual acts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
In October 2005, Magallanez took S.S. to an adult products store called 
"Whispers," where he bought her sex toys. As a result of this incident, Magallanez was 
charged and convicted in December 2005 of promoting obscenities to a minor. 
 
Angela Proehl, an investigator with the Kansas Department of Social and 
Rehabilitation Services, interviewed S.S. in November 2005. S.S. denied any sexual 
contact with either D.S. or Magallanez. In February 2006, after Magallanez had been 
incarcerated for his December 2005 conviction, S.S. disclosed that she had engaged in 
several sex acts with Magallanez. During each, S.S. said, she was either drunk or high. 
S.S. also stated that Magallanez filmed her giving D.S. oral sex and that many of the 
alleged sex acts occurred at Magallanez' house. 
 
In the fall of 2006, after Magallanez was released, S.S. resumed her relationship 
with him. On December 4, 2006, after ending the relationship, S.S. spoke with Detective 
Mark Schondelmaier, disclosing sexual contacts that had occurred between her and 
Magallanez after Magallanez was released from prison. S.S. also disclosed knowledge of 
Magallanez having sexual intercourse with J.P. and K.E. After Magallanez was arrested 
and charged in J.P.'s case, the State also sought prosecution in S.S.'s case. 
 
As to S.S., Magallanez was convicted of 10 counts of rape based on S.S.'s inability 
to consent because of intoxication; 3 counts of aggravated criminal sodomy by the same 
means; 2 counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, based on S.S. being 
between 14 and 16 years of age; 1 count of sexual exploitation of a child; 1 count of 
indecent liberties with a child; 1 count of indecent solicitation of a child; 1 count of 
criminal sodomy; 17 counts of felony furnishing alcohol to a minor for illicit purposes; 
and 1 count of misdemeanor furnishing alcohol to a minor. The court sentenced him to 
2,316 months, which was reduced to 452 months under the double rule of K.S.A. 21-
4720, consecutive to the sentences in the two other cases consolidated for trial. 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
K.E. – 07 CR 95 
 
K.E. turned 15 in November 2006, having met Magallanez through a friend the 
previous month. Magallanez and K.E. communicated through texts and instant messages, 
many of which were sexual in nature. K.E. testified that Magallanez would text her that 
he wanted to have sex with her. K.E. snuck out of her home and met Magallanez. He 
provided her with alcohol, and she had sexual intercourse with him. K.E. engaged in 
sexual acts with Magallanez from October through December 2006. 
 
In November 2006, K.E. allegedly had sex with three young men and Magallanez 
at a party at Magallanez' house. K.E. claimed that Magallanez provided her with alcohol 
and marijuana and that she became intoxicated. K.E. testified that all of the acts of sexual 
intercourse were at Magallanez' suggestion. 
 
On December 20, 2006, Detective Lisa Sage interviewed K.E. regarding the 
alleged sexual acts with Magallanez and the three young men. K.E. detailed several 
sexual acts with Magallanez that had allegedly occurred that fall. 
 
As to K.E., Magallanez ultimately was convicted of three counts of rape based on 
K.E.'s inability to consent because of intoxication; three counts of aggravated indecent 
liberties with a child; one count of sexual exploitation of a child; and four counts of 
felony furnishing alcohol to a minor for illicit purposes. The district judge sentenced him 
to 773 months' incarceration, which was reduced to 452 months under the double rule of 
K.S.A. 21-4720, consecutive to the sentences in the two other cases consolidated for trial. 
 
ANALYSIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
We hold that the five listed appellate issues have merit, that they require reversal 
of all of Magallanez' convictions, and that remand for further proceedings is necessary on 
all but two counts. We address each of the errors in turn below. We decline to address 
Magallanez' other claims of error, either because they appear unlikely to arise on remand 
or deal with sentencing. 
 
Prosecutorial Misconduct 
 
 
On appeal, we analyze allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in two steps. 
 
"'First, the appellate court must determine whether the comments were outside the wide 
latitude allowed in discussing the evidence. Second, the appellate court must decide 
whether those comments constitute plain error; that is, whether the statements prejudiced 
the jury against the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial, thereby requiring 
reversal.'" State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 439, 212 P.3d 165 (2009) (quoting State v. 
White, 284 Kan. 333, Syl. ¶ 1, 161 P.3d 208 [2007]). 
 
See State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 85, 91 P.3d 1204 (2004). 
 
 
Magallanez argues that there were four instances of prosecutorial misconduct 
during the State's opening and rebuttal portions of its closing argument in his trial. He 
entered a timely objection in only one instance, but a timely objection is not required to 
preserve a prosecutorial misconduct claim based on comments made during opening 
statements or closing arguments. State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349, 204 P.3d 585 (2009); 
State v. Decker, 288 Kan. 306, 314, 202 P.3d 669 (2009).   
 
First, the prosecutor asked the jury to pay particular attention to certain jury 
instructions: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
"There's a common knowledge and experience instruction. There's also one that 
says you determine the weight and credibility of witnesses. That one's fairly self-
explanatory. The most important is that you have the right about which a witness has 
testified to use your common knowledge and experience. That opens up your ability to 
bring in what you know. 
 
"This is a case of teenagers, and a continuum of teenagers, and an adult male. 
These are not isolated little pieces. It's a continuum of time through - - at the end of 2005 
and through 2006. For example, you trust children until you have a reason not to. We 
assume that. We assume we have taught them correctly. Some people call those 
adultisms. We, as parents, make inferences. We make beliefs that what we have done is 
right." (Emphasis added.) 
 
The second comment about which Magallanez complains concerned the 
reasonable doubt standard. The prosecutor stated: "Reasonable doubt is not beyond any 
doubt, it's an individual standard. It's a standard that when you believe he's guilty you've 
passed beyond a reasonable doubt." 
 
Magallanez' third challenge to the prosecutor's closing argument focuses the 
prosecutor's statement that "[t]he sex with J.P. was not 'a long foreplay lovemaking 
session'" and from the following comments about S.S. and K.E.: 
 
"Now, you have heard testimony from [S.S.], and you can infer from that, that 
young lady had an alcohol problem. She drank, and she drank a lot. And [Magallanez] 
knew that. Did he help her? Did he stop her? Did he go to her parent and say, I know 
your daughter, she's wanting alcohol all the time? No. He just loaded her up and used her 
over and over and over and over and over. 
 
. . . .  
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
 
"And then we go play in Peter Pan Park, and what are we doing there? There 
we're getting about as visible as we can get. And the one boy, where does that boy get 
sent? Go away, boy, my nephew and I are going to use her together." 
 
"The exploitation is at the party, and the party is - - party spoke for itself . . . You 
want her, you go use her, too. Who was he telling that to? Other adults? My gosh he - - 
14 and 15 - - 14 and 16-year-old boys. He doesn't even stop that. He takes no steps except 
to exploit them all. He gives them all alcohol, he gives them all drugs, and tosses [K.E.] 
to them. Here you go. For wherever she came from, for whatever her problems were, you 
heard her sister say she brought her here. She got here for some reason. Her sister said 
she worked and she went to school and she was trying to do the best she could, and 
instead someone else plies her with alcohol and tosses her and exploits boys to do it with 
her too." 
 
"And again and again everyone used [K.E.] and everyone uses [S.S.]" Why not? 
Because they're just making it up. It's no big deal to get around this . . . By November 
12th he's done with [K.E.] He's finished with her. Throw [K.E.] away. 
 
"Fault [S.S.] or not, she sat there in front of people after repeated tellings of this story and 
said, yes, that's me in my underwear, so sexualized that it was numbing." (Emphasis 
added.) 
 
The fourth and final prosecutorial misconduct argument asserted by Magallanez is 
based on the following statements by the prosecutor: "If you can't consent [to sex] 
because of the effect of drugs or alcohol, . . . which eliminates that ability to consent, it is 
rape. If you provide it and it's apparent to you that they're engaging in the use of alcohol 
to an extent that they're affected, it's rape." (Emphasis added.) Magallanez immediately 
objected to this comment as a misstatement of law. The district judge overruled the 
objection. Later, discussing Magallanez' sexual relations with K.E., the prosecutor stated: 
"[K.E.] said . . . she hadn't had anything to drink, so when he fingers her or has 
 
 
 
 
 
12 
 
intercourse with her there it drops to aggravated indecent. That's a - - law, 14 and 15, if 
you don't induce them with alcohol or drugs, it's a different crime." (Emphasis added.) 
 
With regard to the first alleged error, it is improper for a lawyer to comment on a 
witness' credibility. See State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 60, 105 P.3d 1222 (2005); State v. 
Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, 506, 996 P.2d 321 (2000). "When a case develops that turns on 
which of two conflicting stories is true, it may be reasonable to argue, based on evidence, 
that certain testimony is not believable. However, the ultimate conclusion as to any 
witness' veracity rests solely with the jury." Pabst, 268 Kan. at 507. "The point of not 
allowing a prosecutor to comment on the credibility of a witness is that expressions of 
personal opinion by the prosecutor are a form of unsworn, unchecked testimony, not 
commentary on the evidence of the case." Pabst, 268 Kan. at 510. 
 
Under this well-settled law, Magallanez' first argument on prosecutorial 
misconduct has merit. When the prosecutor said, "[Y]ou trust children until you have a 
reason not to. We assume that. We assume we have taught them correctly," he essentially 
gave unsworn testimony about the truthfulness of teenagers and children. This statement 
improperly bolstered the credibility of the State's witnesses and was well outside the wide 
latitude granted prosecutors in closing argument. 
 
Magallanez' second argument on prosecutorial misconduct also has merit. Our 
previous cases have demonstrated that prosecutors embellish on the definition of the 
burden of proof in criminal cases at their peril. See State v. Brinklow, 288 Kan. 39, 49-50, 
200 P.3d 1225 (2009) (discussing State v. Wilson, 281 Kan. 277, 286, 130 P.3d 48 
[2006]); and State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392, 406, 133 P.3d 14 (2006) (citing to State v. 
Henry, 273 Kan. 608, 619, 44 P.3d 466 [2002]). This case is another demonstration of 
that point. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13 
 
The prosecutor's statement that the measure of reasonable doubt is "an individual 
standard . . . a standard that when you believe he's guilty you've passed beyond" did, as 
Magallanez asserts, incorrectly define and impermissibly dilute the State's burden of 
proof. A juror's mere belief that an accused individual is guilty does not automatically 
mean that the State has met its burden. See Brinklow, 288 Kan. at 49-50 (prosecutor had 
told jury reasonable doubt satisfied when jury "just knew" defendant guilty; according to 
prior cases, "[i]f a jury cannot convict because common sense tells it the defendant is 
guilty and cannot convict because it is simply reasonable to believe the defendant did it, 
then it is likewise improper to convict because the jury just knows that the defendant did 
it"). Such a misstatement of law is outside the wide latitude given to prosecutors in 
closing argument. See Bunyard, 281 Kan. at 406. "A misstatement of the law by the 
prosecutor denies the defendant a fair trial when the facts are such that the jury could 
have been confused or misled by the statement." 281 Kan. at 404. 
 
Magallanez challenges the third set of statements by the prosecutor set out above 
as irrelevant to any point of law and thus designed exclusively and inappropriately to 
inflame the jury. The State argues that the statements drew reasonable inferences based 
on trial evidence showing that Magallanez spoke to the victims during the relevant time 
period, that he had sexual relations with S.S. and K.E. after they became intoxicated, and 
that he orchestrated K.E.'s sexual activity with others. The State also argues that the 
statements were supported by S.S.'s testimony that she felt Magallanez had taken 
advantage of her. As to the statement regarding the length of Magallanez encounter with 
J.P., the State argues that this comment was intended to show the jury that the crime was 
committed within a short gap in time between text messages and cell phone calls shown 
by phone records. 
 
"Prosecutors are not allowed to make statements that inflame the passions or 
prejudices of the jury or distract the jury from its duty to make decisions based on the 
 
 
 
 
 
14 
 
evidence and the controlling law." State v. Baker, 281 Kan. 997, 1016, 135 P.3d 1098 
(2006); see also State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 90, 98, 91 P.3d 1204 (2004) (prosecutor's 
remark that victim had been raped second time was a character attack at trial outside wide 
latitude prosecutors allowed in discussing evidence); State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608, 440, 
44 P.3d 466 (2002) (prosecutor's comment urging jury to think about Mother's Day, how 
victim's mother felt inflamed passion, prejudice of jury); but see State v. Cravatt, 267 
Kan. 314, 336, 979 P.2d 679 (1999) (prosecutor's comment that jury should not let 
defendant get away with killing 21-year-old victim not improper; State asking "jury to 
seriously consider the nature of the defendant's act toward the victim"). 
 
The State is correct that the challenged statements drew reasonable inferences 
from the admitted evidence. Testimony and documents demonstrated Magallanez 
communicated with S.S. and K.E. during the relevant time period, that he provided S.S. 
and K.E. with alcohol, that S.S. and K.E. had trouble functioning as a result, and that 
Magallanez had sexual intercourse, apparently not marked by time-consuming 
tenderness, with each of them. The prosecutor's employment of the terms "used," "throw 
away," and "toss" was perhaps more colorful than it needed to be, gratuitously implying 
that Magallanez treated his young victims like so much garbage, but we do not regard 
these statements as outside the wide latitude we grant prosecutors in discussing the 
evidence. Rather, this language, the reference to the absence of foreplay, and the 
prosecutor's observation that S.S.'s reaction was "so sexualized that it was numbing" 
amounted to allowable argument on Magallanez' pattern of conduct and S.S.'s demeanor 
on the stand. 
 
Finally, Magallanez contests the legal accuracy of the last set of statements by the 
prosecutor on the role of a victim's intoxication on its theories on rape and sodomy. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15 
 
The prosecutor was correct that the applicable statutes mention the mere "effect" 
of alcohol or drugs. K.S.A. 21-3502 states that rape is "[s]exual intercourse with a person 
who does not consent to the sexual intercourse . . . when . . . the victim is incapable of 
giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug, or other 
substance, which condition was known by the offender or was reasonably apparent to the 
offender." (Emphasis added.) Likewise, under K.S.A. 21-3506, aggravated criminal 
sodomy can occur with an individual who does not consent or who is incapable of giving 
consent "because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug, or other substance, 
which condition was known by the offender or was reasonably apparent to the offender." 
(Emphasis added.) However, a general effect on a victim is not all the State must prove. 
When the State's theory is lack of consent based on the victim's intoxication, it must also 
show that the intoxication made the victim's consent impossible and/or legally 
ineffective. 
 
The context saves the State from a further assessment of error attributable to these 
statements. When the prosecutor's references to the importance of the effect of 
intoxication are read holistically with surrounding text, it becomes apparent that he was 
attempting to explain the difference among charges brought by the State. Those instances 
in which K.E. and Magallanez engaged in sexual intercourse when K.E. was not under 
the influence of alcohol or drugs led to charges of aggravated indecent liberties. Those 
instances in which K.E. was under the influence of alcohol or drugs led to charges of 
rape. Although the prosecutor came very close to stepping over the line in this instance, 
we are persuaded that these comments were inartful but not inaccurate. 
 
Having established that there were two instances of error by the prosecutor here, 
we would ordinarily move to the second prong of prosecutorial misconduct analysis, 
asking whether the conduct prejudiced Magallanez and denied him a fair trial. See State 
v. Carter, 284 Kan. 312, 327, 160 P.3d 457 (2007). 
 
 
 
 
 
16 
 
 
"'In the second step of the two-step prosecutorial misconduct analysis, the 
appellate court considers three factors to determine whether a new trial should be 
granted: (1) whether the misconduct is gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct 
shows ill will on the prosecutor's part; and (3) whether the evidence against the defendant 
is of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have little 
weight in the minds of the jurors. None of these three factors is individually controlling. 
Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be 
able to say that the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with 
substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 87 S. Ct. 
824 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, 
likelihood of having changed the results of the trial), have been met.'" Richmond, 289 
Kan. at 440 (quoting State v. Bryant, 285 Kan. 970, Syl. ¶ 2, 179 P.3d 1122 [2008]). 
 
See also Tosh, 278 Kan. at 93 (second step essentially directed to whether misconduct so 
prejudicial that it denied fair trial). 
 
Viewed in isolation, and given the amount of evidence against Magallanez, we 
would be disinclined to hold that the prosecutor's two errors require reversal under the 
second prong of our analysis. Neither error appears to be gross and flagrant, and we 
detect no ill will in the prosecutor's conduct. These errors cannot, however, be viewed in 
isolation. There were other errors that impeded the conduct of a fair trial in this case, as 
we explain further below. 
 
Shotgun Limiting Instruction on Prior Crimes or Civil Wrongs 
 
Before and during trial, evidence was admitted of three prior crimes or civil 
wrongs committed by Magallanez. First, the State filed a pretrial motion to admit 
evidence of the "Whispers" incident, arguing the evidence showed Magallanez' motive 
and intent. Magallanez objected. The district judge granted the State's motion, holding 
 
 
 
 
 
17 
 
that the evidence was admissible to prove Magallanez' plan, knowledge, and preparation, 
but he also noted that Magallanez would have a continuing objection when the evidence 
was admitted during trial. 
 
At trial the judge also admitted evidence of a second rape of J.P. Both J.P. and her 
mother testified that Magallanez forced J.P. to have sex during the weekend after 
Thanksgiving 2006. The defense did not object to J.P.'s mother's testimony during direct, 
and the defense introduced J.P.'s testimony on this topic during her cross-examination. 
 
Evidence of a third prior crime or civil wrong came in through K.E., who testified 
without objection on both her direct examination and cross-examination that Magallanez 
had sold marijuana. 
 
The district judge gave the limiting instruction from PIK Crim. 3d 52.06: 
"Evidence has been admitted tending to prove that the defendant committed crimes other 
than the present crimes charged. This evidence may be considered solely for the purpose 
of proving the defendant's motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or 
identity." Magallanez did not object. Now, for the first time on appeal, he argues this 
instruction's overbreadth requires reversal. 
 
Because Magallanez failed to object to the giving of this instruction, this court 
reviews this issue under the clearly erroneous standard. See State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 
40, Syl. ¶ 6, 194 P.3d 563 (2008). "Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the 
reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have 
rendered a different verdict if the error had not occurred." Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, Syl. ¶ 6. 
 
The instruction given by the court has been described as a "shotgun" instruction 
for its failure to focus specifically on the object of proof, and it has been repeatedly 
 
 
 
 
 
18 
 
criticized by this court. See State v. Donnelson, 219 Kan. 772, 777, 549 P.2d 964 (1976); 
State v. Moore, 218 Kan. 450, 455-56, 543 P.2d 923 (1975); State v. Rasler, 216 Kan. 
582, 587, 533 P.2d 1262 (1975); State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168, 176, 523 P.2d 397 (1974) 
abrogated on other grounds State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 556 P.2d 387 (1976). As we 
have stated previously, rarely will all eight of the factors enumerated in K.S.A. 60-455 
and PIK Crim. 3d 52.06 be at issue in a single trial; thus the shotgun instruction is rarely 
proper and increases the risk of error. See Donnelson, 219 Kan. at 777; State v. Gibson, 
30 Kan. App. 2d 937, 950, 52 P.3d 339 (2002). "Those elements which are obviously 
inapplicable should not be instructed upon." Bly, 215 Kan. at 176. 
 
Regarding the "Whispers" evidence, the trial court determined that evidence of the 
prior conviction for promoting obscenity to a minor was relevant to prove Magallanez' 
plan, knowledge, and preparation. Although we agree that admission for these limited 
purposes was proper, the district judge should have listed only these purposes in any 
related limiting instruction. It is error to instruct upon any K.S.A. 60-455 factor that is 
obviously inapplicable. As to the evidence of the second rape of J.P. and Magallanez' 
alleged selling of marijuana, the judge also erred in failing even to specify the relevant 
factor to be proved, much less to instruct only upon it. See State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 
48, 144 P.3d 647 (2006). 
 
Given the weight of the evidence against Magallanez, these errors on the limiting 
instruction for the K.S.A. 60-455 evidence may have been deemed harmless standing 
alone. But they do not stand alone. Instead, they, like the two incidents of prosecutorial 
misconduct discussed above, are among the errors we must consider in the cumulative 
error calculus below. 
 
Partial Exclusion of Relevant Evidence 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19 
 
On this issue, Magallanez alleges that the district judge improperly excluded a 
portion of a letter from J.P. to Magallanez, which discussed J.P.'s sexual history and 
contained an admission that she lied to Magallanez about it. The defense filed a pretrial 
motion for admission of the letter, arguing that it would be useful to impeach J.P.'s 
credibility. The State objected that the letter was barred by the rape shield statute, K.S.A. 
21-3525. The district judge agreed, saying: "[T]he fact that [J.P.] may not have been a 
virgin or had sex on a previous time [was] not relevant in this case." 
 
During J.P.'s testimony at trial, the prosecutor asked her if she and Magallanez 
ever talked about sex. J.P. said that Magallanez had asked her how she felt about it and 
that she had told him she "wanted to lose [her] virginity to someone . . . [she] really cared 
about." Later in J.P.'s direct examination, the State moved to admit a redacted version of 
the disputed letter. Magallanez objected, arguing that the entire letter should be admitted 
because J.P.'s testimony implying she had been a virgin when she and Magallanez had 
sex opened the door to evidence of her earlier sexual experience. The district judge 
overruled Magallanez' objection and admitted the redacted version of the letter. 
 
Earlier cases have held that our review of a district judge's decision to exclude 
evidence under the rape shield statute is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. See 
State v. Lackey, 280 Kan. 190, 219, 120 P.3d 332 (2005); State v. Zuniga, 237 Kan. 788, 
793, 703 P.2d 805 (1985); State v. Bressman, 236 Kan. 296, 300, 689 P.2d 901 (1984). 
Recently, however, this court has refined its general analysis of evidentiary rulings and 
determined that multiple steps are required. See State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 504-09, 186 
P.3d 713 (2008). These steps must be followed for evidence that may be covered by the 
rape shield statute as well. 
 
First, the court determines relevance, which has two components, materiality and 
probativeness. Materiality concerns whether the fact to be proved "'has a legitimate and 
 
 
 
 
 
20 
 
effective bearing on the decision of the case.'" State v. Garcia, 285 Kan. 1, 14, 169 P.3d 
1069 (2007) (quoting State v. Faulkner, 220 Kan. 153, 156, 551 P.2d 1247 [1976]). Our 
standard of review for materiality is de novo. Reid, 286 Kan. at 505. On probativeness, 
the court examines whether the offered evidence has "'any tendency in reason to prove'" a 
disputed material fact. Reid, 286 Kan. at 505. This court reviews probativity for abuse of 
discretion. Reid, 286 Kan. at 507. 
 
"'"Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and 
exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's 
discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question. [Citation omitted.] When 
the adequacy of the legal basis of a district judge's decision on admission or exclusion of 
evidence is questioned, we review the decision de novo."'" Reid, 286 Kan. at 503 
(quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 47-48, 144 P.3d 647 [2006]).  
 
The contours of the rule in question here are found in the rape shield statute, which 
provides that, in a rape prosecution, "evidence of the complaining witness' previous 
sexual conduct with any person including the defendant shall not be admissible, and no 
reference shall be made thereto in any proceeding before the court" unless the court finds 
the evidence relevant and otherwise admissible. K.S.A. 21-3525(b). 
 
At the preliminary hearing, J.P. testified, "We were talking, and he asked me how 
I felt about my virginity and how I felt about losing it." The State asked, "What did you 
tell him?" And J.P. responded, "I told him that if I wanted to lose it I would want to lose 
it to someone I really cared about." J.P. further testified that, following this conversation, 
she and Magallanez got into the backseat of his car and had sex. 
 
Shortly before trial, Magallanez filed a sealed motion seeking a ruling on 
admission of the entire first page of a letter from J.P. to Magallanez. Although we 
 
 
 
 
 
21 
 
recognize the sensitive nature of the letter's content, for purposes of discussion and 
decision, we must include the text of the letter in its entirety.   
 
"Malaki, 
 
"Hey! Whats up my sexy man friend? Not to much here . . . just really bored!! . . . Okay 
and how you always ask me if I think about you everyday . . . well . . . I don't!! I think 
about you every second of every minute of every of every hour of every day!! Isn't it 
crazy?? I think it is!! So about you wanting a two-page note. I don't know if I can make 
it that long!! . . . (lolz) Sorry for the sloppy handwriting this pencil sucks ASS!! But yea 
. . . I can't stop thinking about you! Do you know you have like the prettiest eyes!! 
OOO . . . yea!! I WANT MY POEM BOOK BACK!!! Gosh I need it I got so much 
stuff I need to write! Its all going through my head right now!! Yea . . . So the other 
night on the phone was funny!! The whole andy going . . . Can I break you off? What 
does that meen? Can I break you off? What does that meen? Give it to you good? (lol) 
(lmao)!!!!! Find about the whole me not being a vergin well I didn't tell you because I 
wanted to forget about it!!! It only lasted like 5 min. b4 I wanted him to stop!! It was 
horrible and it was THE WORST NIGHT OF MY LIFE!! You please 4 give me?? Im 
really sorry 4 lieing to you but I really don't want anyone to know especially you!!! But 
that was all in the past and I don't want to talk about it! Wow . . My handwriting really 
sucks today!!" 
 
The district judge ruled that J.P.'s virginity was irrelevant to the case and that the 
content of the letter regarding J.P.'s previous sexual encounter was barred by the rape 
shield statute. Specifically, he noted that the rape charge depended upon J.P. being 
younger than 14, not on her behavior: "[I]t doesn't matter what the actions of the victim 
were in this case because of the nature and the age of the victim." In addition, in the 
judge's view, other evidence to impeach J.P.'s credibility was available to the defense. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22 
 
At this point in the case, the district judge correctly discerned that the letter was 
clearly probative on J.P.'s sexual history, but he also correctly ruled that evidence of J.P.'s 
sexual history was not material to whether she had been raped by Magallanez. Excluding 
any portion of the letter to prove J.P. had been sexually active before her encounters with 
Magallanez was appropriate because such evidence was covered by the rape shield 
statute and was not otherwise relevant and admissible for this purpose because of its 
failure to meet the materiality requirement of the relevance inquiry. 
 
However, the district judge appears to have failed to fully grasp the secondary 
significance of the letter. The letter also was material and probative evidence—indeed, 
the best evidence the defense could imagine having—that J.P. was capable of lying and 
had lied in the past about her sexual conduct. This evidence was at the heart of the 
defense theory, i.e., that J.P. was lying about Magallanez in this case. Under these 
circumstances, the letter met the exception to the shield erected by the statute. It was 
otherwise relevant and admissible for this impeachment purpose. It was not enough for 
the district judge merely to observe that other impeachment evidence existed, when none 
could have matched the power of J.P.'s admission in her own handwriting that she had 
lied about her sexual history. 
 
At trial, J.P. repeated that she had told Magallanez she wanted to lose her virginity 
to someone she cared about, and the State admitted a redacted form of the letter that 
omitted everything between "(lol) (lmao)!!!!!" and "My handwriting really sucks today!!" 
The State was interested in sponsoring circumstantial evidence of the intimate nature of 
J.P.'s relationship to Magallanez. It may also have wanted to prevent the jury from 
hearing that J.P. was sexually experienced, hoping to capitalize on any purity bias that 
could draw paternalistic sympathy. The defense made a timely objection, again seeking to 
admit the entire page of J.P.'s letter. But the district judge did not change his pretrial 
ruling.  
 
 
 
 
 
23 
 
 
This was error. Regardless of whether the rape shield statute could have 
previously been applied to prevent the defendant's introduction of evidence of J.P.'s 
sexual history that was not otherwise relevant and admissible, it could no longer be 
applied to prevent Magallanez from impeaching J.P.'s own testimony on that subject or 
from demonstrating that she had lied about it before. Again, J.P.'s credibility was key. 
And, as Magallanez argued at trial and before this court, the State opened the door to the 
otherwise off-limits issue of J.P.'s virginity. Although not invoked by either party, K.S.A. 
21-3525(c) makes clear that there is an exception to the statutory shield in situations such 
as the one before us here. If a prosecutor introduces evidence of a complaining witness' 
previous sexual conduct or a complaining witness testifies to that conduct, the defense 
need not be silent. "If such evidence or testimony is introduced, the defendant may cross-
examine the witness who gives such testimony and offer relevant evidence limited 
specifically to the rebuttal of such evidence or testimony introduced by the prosecutor or 
given by the complaining witness." K.S.A. 21-3525(c). The redacted portion of the letter 
would have rebutted both J.P.'s statement implying she was a virgin when she first had 
sex with Magallanez and impeached her testimony overall. See State v. Atkinson, 276 
Kan. 920, 931, 80 P.3d 1143 (2003) (citing K.S.A. 60-420) (error to exclude evidence of 
complaining witness' inconsistent statements to police about prior sexual history with 
defendant; once inadmissible evidence elicited, similar evidence can be admitted to 
rebut); compare State v. Rakestraw, 255 Kan. 35, 44-46, 871 P.2d 1274 (1994) (citing 
State v. Purdy, 228 Kan. 264, Syl. ¶ 2, 615 P.2d 131 [1980]) (when party seeks to 
introduce redacted statement into evidence, redaction must not distort its meaning; if "the 
complete statement is exculpatory and the redacted statement is inculpatory, we must 
conclude that the redacted statement distorts the meaning of the complete statement"); 
Dewey v. Funk, 211 Kan. 54, 57, 505 P.2d 722 (1973) (when party introduces 
inadmissible, prejudicial evidence, opposing party may introduce similar evidence as 
needed to remove unfair prejudice; litigant "who draws from his own witness irrelevant 
 
 
 
 
 
24 
 
testimony which is prejudicial to the opposing litigant ought not to object to its 
contradiction on the ground of its irrelevancy"). 
 
We thus conclude that the district judge erred in refusing to admit the redacted 
portion of the letter written by J.P. Rather than address whether this error requires 
reversal on its own, we will address it in our discussion of cumulative error below. 
 
Aggravated Indecent Liberties with a Child as Lesser Included Offense of Rape 
 
 
Counts 24 and 34 of the second amended complaint alleged that Magallanez raped 
S.S. The trial court instructed the jury on aggravated indecent liberties with a child as a 
lesser included offense of rape for these counts. For both counts, the jury acquitted 
Magallanez of rape and convicted him of aggravated indecent liberties. Magallanez 
argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of aggravated indecent 
liberties because aggravated indecent liberties is not a lesser included offense of rape. See 
State v. Belcher, 269 Kan. 2, 8, 4 P.3d 1137 (2000). The State concedes the lack of 
jurisdiction. 
 
 
Magallanez' convictions of aggravated indecent liberties as to S.S. must be 
reversed. He cannot be retried on the greater charge, as conviction of what the jury 
believed, based on erroneous instruction, was a lesser charge functions as a de facto 
acquittal of the greater. See State v. McCorgary, 218 Kan. 358, 368, 543 P.2d 952 (1975). 
 
Allen-type Instruction 
Magallanez argues that the giving of the following instruction before jury 
deliberations began was reversible error: 
 
 
 
 
 
25 
 
"Like all cases, this is an important case. If you fail to reach a decision on some 
or all of the charges, that charge or charges are left undecided for the time being. It is 
then up to the state to decide whether to resubmit the undecided charges to a different 
jury at a later time. Another trial would be a burden on both sides.   
"This does not mean that those favoring any particular position should surrender 
their honest convictions as to the weight or effect of any evidence solely because of the 
opinion of other jurors or because of the importance of arriving at a decision. 
"This does mean that you should give respectful consideration to each other's 
views and talk over any differences of opinion in a spirit of fairness and candor. If at all 
possible, you should resolve any differences and come to a common conclusion.  
"You may be leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and take 
all the time you feel necessary." (Emphasis added.)  
Magallanez did not object to this instruction at trial; therefore, as previously noted, 
we employ the clearly erroneous standard on review. State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 
1145, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009). Under this standard, the court must determine whether "'[it 
is] firmly convinced there is a real possibility the jury would have rendered a different 
verdict if the error had not occurred.'" State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263, 265-66, 200 P.3d 464 
(2009). 
Generally, if the subject Allen-type instruction taken from PIK Crim. 3d 68.12 has 
been given before deliberations begin, this court has not found reversible error. See State 
v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569, 78 P.3d 412 (2003); State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 
201, 216, 145 P.3d 1 (2006). However, Magallanez takes particular issue with the 
emphasized language—another trial would be a burden on both sides—which has been 
removed by the PIK Committee since his trial. 
This court has specifically addressed this language in two recent cases. In Salts, 
this court held that including the language was error because it was misleading and 
 
 
 
 
 
26 
 
inaccurate; however, it was not reversible under the clearly erroneous standard. Salts, 288 
Kan. at 266-67. 
More recently, in Ellmaker, this court again acknowledged that including the 
challenged language was error because it was misleading and inaccurate. Again, 
however, the court ruled that there was no real possibility the jury would have returned a 
different verdict without the error. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1146-47. 
Here, we will not consider whether the language, standing alone, constitutes 
reversible error. Rather, it will be a factor in our cumulative error discussion below. 
Cumulative Error 
Magallanez argues that, even if the individual errors discussed above do not 
warrant reversal, their cumulative effect does. 
"Cumulative trial errors, considered collectively, may be so great as to require reversal of 
a defendant's conviction. The test is whether the totality of the circumstances 
substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied him or her a fair trial. No prejudicial 
error may be found under the cumulative effect rule if the evidence is overwhelming 
against a defendant." State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 250, 169 P.3d 1128 (2007) (citing 
State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216-17, 145 P.3d 1 [2006]). 
This court has recognized often that the federal and state constitutions do not 
guarantee a perfect trial, but they do guarantee a fair one, even when the defendant stands 
accused of unspeakably horrendous crimes. State v. Hayden, 281 Kan. 112, 124, 130 P.3d 
24 (2006). This case is one of the rare ones in which cumulative error dictates reversal of 
the defendant's convictions and remand for further proceedings, because it is our view 
 
 
 
 
 
27 
 
Magallanez did not get a fair trial and the evidence was not so overwhelming as to 
overcome the error. The five errors that, viewed collectively, substantially prejudiced 
Magallanez and denied him a fair trial were: prosecutorial misconduct, the overbreadth of 
the trial court's shotgun limiting instruction under K.S.A. 60-455, the redaction of J.P.'s 
letter to Magallanez, lack of jurisdiction to convict on aggravated indecent liberties as to 
S.S., and the inclusion of the "burden on both sides" language in the Allen-type 
instruction. 
 
We have discussed already the potential danger when prosecutors embellish the 
burden of proof required in criminal cases, and the prosecutor committed this error by 
diluting the reasonable doubt standard in this case. Our prior case law also recognizes a 
defendant is entitled to have guilt determined solely based on the evidence introduced at 
trial, not other circumstances. State v. Bloom, 273 Kan. 291, 306, 44 P.3d 305 (2002); 
Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468, 98 S. Ct. 1930 (1978). This 
right was impaired by the misleading portion of the Allen instruction indicating that 
another trial would burden both sides. This trial was further tainted by evidentiary and 
argument issues; the prosecutor's improper comment that "you trust children until you 
have reason not to" exacerbated the district judge's error in barring admission of the very 
evidence proving that one of the victims had lied before about her sexual activity. 
Furthermore, the district judge failed to properly instruct the jury on limiting use of the 
evidence of Magallanez' prior crimes. Each error, viewed independently, would not have 
been enough to require reversal, but we cannot hold Magallanez received a fair trial when 
the errors are aggregated. 
 
 
Further, while we do not discuss the propriety of consolidating the three 
cases for trial, we hold we must reverse all of the convictions in this case. At least the 
prosecutorial misconduct, Allen instruction, and shotgun K.S.A. 60-455 limiting 
instruction infected all three cases.  
 
 
 
 
 
28 
 
 
 
 
Magallanez' lesser offense convictions of aggravated indecent liberties with a child 
S.S. on Counts 24 and 34 are reversed. His remaining convictions are reversed and those 
remaining charges are remanded to the district court for further proceedings.