Opinion ID: 2630897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Count IIIAggravated Criminal Sodomy

Text: Colston argues that, based on evidence presented at trial, his conviction of aggravated criminal sodomy could have been based on two separate acts. B.N. testified at trial that Colston licked her vagina on Friday, August 11, and she made a videotaped statement at Sunflower House, which was presented to the jury, that Colston licked her vagina on Saturday, August 12. The State argues that B.N. never alleged the sodomy occurred more than once. At trial, she simply changed the date the sodomy occurred from Saturday to Friday, and she never testified that a second oral sexual encounter occurred on Saturday. Aggravated criminal sodomy is [s]odomy with a child who is under 14 years of age. K.S.A. 21-3506. K.S.A. 21-3501(2) defines [s]odomy as oral contact or oral penetration of the female genitalia. The jury was instructed that Count III, aggravated criminal sodomy, allegedly occurred on or about August 11, 2006. However, on this charge the on or about language in the jury instruction is not problematic. Based on a thorough review of the record, it does not appear that B.N. alleged a second act of sodomy at any time, nor is there evidence of a second instance that could be construed as sodomy under the statutory definition. Both the videotape of B.N.'s statement at Sunflower House and her testimony at trial described only one act of sodomy. The jury's agreement on the specific date the act occurred was unnecessary. As such, regarding Count III, there is no multiple acts issue, and Colston's argument fails to survive the threshold question under the Voyles analysis.