Opinion ID: 2353917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ISSUE 1: Did the trial court err by allowing the State to introduce K.S.A. 60-455 evidence to show plan, intent, or absence of mistake or accident?

Text: First, Inkelaar argues the trial court should not have permitted the State to introduce evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs under K.S.A. 60-455, specifically, Inkelaar's alleged prior sexual abuse of other children. According to Inkelaar, the prior acts were not admissible on the bases given by the trial court, i.e., to prove plan, intent, or absence of mistake or accident. To support this argument, Inkelaar contends intent and absence of mistake or accident were not material facts at issue in the case, and while he does not challenge the trial court's findings with regard to whether the prior allegations were strikingly similar to show plan, Inkelaar argues evidence of plan, as well as intent and absence of mistake or accident, was more prejudicial than probative.