Volume 235 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. EVIDENCE — <italic>Irrelevant Evidence — Admissibility of Rape</italic> <italic>Victim's Prior Sexual Conduct.</italic> Evidence which is material may be held inadmissible because it is irrelevant. Testimony concerning a rape victim's prior sexual conduct was properly held irrelevant because it was too remote. See <italic>State v.</italic> <italic>Stellwagen</italic>, <cross_reference>232 Kan. 744</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>659 P.2d 167</cross_reference> (1983), and <italic>In re</italic> <italic>Nichols</italic>, <cross_reference>2 Kan. App. 2d 431</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>580 P.2d 1370</cross_reference>, <italic>rev. denied</italic> <cross_reference>225 Kan. 844</cross_reference> (1978). 2. SAME — <italic>Tape Recording — Admissibility — Foundation</italic> <italic>Requirements.</italic> The foundation requirements for admission into evidence of a tape recording are: (1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent; (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; (6) identification of the speakers; and (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement. 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 436, pp. 494-95. Additionally, the admission of the recording is within the discretion of the trial court. See <italic>State v. Poulos Perez</italic>, <cross_reference>230 Kan. 512</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>639 P.2d 477</cross_reference> (1982). 3. SAME — <italic>Physical Evidence — Admissibility — Chain of</italic> <italic>Custody.</italic> The chain of custody requirements for physical evidence have been set forth by this court as requiring a reasonably complete chain. The rule "may be relaxed when the object is positively identified at the trial and it is established the object remains unaltered." <italic>State v.</italic> <italic>Treadwell</italic>, <cross_reference>223 Kan. 577</cross_reference>, Syl. ¶ 2, <cross_reference>575 P.2d 550</cross_reference> (1978). 4. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Tape Recording of Crime in Progress —</italic> <italic>Admissibility.</italic> A trial judge need not listen to a tape recording of an actual crime in progress before ruling on its admissibility if there is sufficient adequate testimony that the recording is accurate. 5. SAME — <italic>Tape Recording of Crime in Progress — Admissibility</italic> <italic>— Prejudicial Effect.</italic> A tape recording of an actual crime in progress is not too prejudicial to be admitted into evidence if the recording corroborates a witness' testimony and goes to the heart of the case. 6. SAME — <italic>Jury Instructions — When Defendant's Theories Must</italic> <italic>Be Instructed On.</italic> The general rule regarding instructions is the trial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the theories of both sides of the case where there is evidence to support each theory. <italic>State v. Haynes</italic>, <cross_reference>5 Kan. App. 2d 144</cross_reference>, Syl. ¶ 2, <cross_reference>612 P.2d 1268</cross_reference> (1980). 7. SAME — <italic>Jury Instructions — Attempt Instruction — When</italic> <italic>Required.</italic> The defendant is entitled to an attempt instruction only if there is some evidence to show the crime was not completed. The duty to instruct on lesser included offenses arises only if there is evidence under which the defendant might reasonably have been convicted of the lesser crime. See <italic>State v. Everson</italic>, <cross_reference>229 Kan. 540</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>542</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>626 P.2d 1189</cross_reference> (1981). 8. SAME — <italic>Sentencing — Appellate Review — Jurisdiction of</italic> <italic>Trial Court to</italic><page_number>Page 486</page_number> <italic>Modify Sentence.</italic> When the issue of sentencing is on appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction to modify the sentence upon the filing of the notice of appeal. See <italic>State v.</italic> <italic>Dedman</italic>, <cross_reference>230 Kan. 793</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>640 P.2d 1266</cross_reference> (1982). 9. SAME — <italic>Sentencing — Appellate Review.</italic> When a sentence is within the statutory limits set by the legislature, it will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of special circumstances showing an abuse of discretion. <italic>State v.</italic> <italic>Stellwagen</italic>, <cross_reference>232 Kan. 744</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>659 P.2d 167</cross_reference> (1983). 10. SAME — <italic>Reversal of Conviction Based on Cumulative Effect of</italic> <italic>Trial Errors — Test to Be Applied.</italic> 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 circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied him a fair trial. See <italic>State v. Gammill</italic>, <cross_reference>2 Kan. App. 2d 627</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>633</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>585 P.2d 1074</cross_reference> (1978). No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.