## Facts

- Rasmus R. Eddy’s 4-year-old granddaughter, A.E., stayed with him for several days.
- After the visit, A.E. reported sexual conduct by Eddy to adults and later testified at trial that Eddy “licked her ‘pee-pee’” while they were alone in a bedroom.
- Eddy told police A.E. had shown him a sore on the inside of her labia and claimed any “licking” was pretend, involving the inside of her thigh or the back of his hand.
- The State charged Eddy with multiple sex offenses, including rape of a child under 14, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, promoting obscenity to a minor, and aggravated criminal sodomy.
- A jury convicted Eddy, and the district court imposed a controlling 310-month prison sentence.
- On direct appeal, Eddy challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the rape conviction based on an alleged “alternative means” instruction problem and (2) the denial of his request for a psychological examination of A.E.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the rape conviction where Eddy claimed the jury instructions presented “alternative means” of committing rape that each required substantial evidentiary support.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion or denied a fair trial by refusing to order a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the child complainant to assess competency and/or credibility.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Eddy’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held the rape instruction did not create reversible alternative-means error; it described a single offense, and variations in how the act occurred were evidentiary details rather than distinct means.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court held a rational factfinder could find the elements of rape of a child proved beyond a reasonable doubt based largely on A.E.’s testimony and Eddy’s statements.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a compelled psychological examination of A.E., given the lack of a particularized showing of need, the competency determination at trial, and the opportunity for cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- In Kansas, true alternative-means cases require substantial evidence supporting each alternative means submitted to the jury; not every factual variation constitutes an alternative means.
- Appellate sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; credibility conflicts and innocent explanations are for the jury.
- Ordering a psychological examination of a child witness is discretionary and disfavored absent a case-specific showing that the examination is necessary to assess competency or that denial would render the trial unfair.
- A child victim’s testimony can be sufficient to support a conviction if the jury finds it credible.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Eddy’s child-rape and related convictions, concluding the rape instruction did not create an alternative-means sufficiency defect and that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying a compelled psychological evaluation of the child witness.


State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29, 321 P.3d 12 (Kan. 2014)