State v. Trickle

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the expert testimony on suicide risk, the admission of audio and video excerpts, and the exclusion of lay testimony were proper, while finding that the prosecutor’s flippant closing remarks and the admission of sex‑doll purchase evidence were errors but harmless. The court also ruled that the appellant’s objections were not properly preserved and that cumulative trial errors did not prejudice the verdict.