11 Kan. App. 2d 655, 662, 732 P.2d 780, rev. denied 241 Kan. 839 (1987). The question of whether charges are multiplicitous is a question of law. This court’s review of conclusions of law is unlimited. See Perry, 16 Kan. App. 2d at 151. The district court erred in finding that the crime of aggravated kidnapping was not multiplicitous with the charge of aggravated indecent liberties. The evidence revealed that Morfitt placed his hands on A.S.’s breasts and then on her vaginal area. It was never alleged that these events were separated by time and space. A reading of the trial transcripts and A.S.’s deposition appears to indicate that the touching occurred at the same time and was, therefore, one continuous act of force. See State v. Harkness, 252 Kan. 510, 532-33, 847 P.2d 1191 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that under the
holding that failure to give lesserincluded charge of simple assault as lesserincluded offense of aggravated assault on police officer was reversible error holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim holding that aggravated assault was not a lesser included offense in prosecution for armed burglary attempted robbery and use of a firearm in the com mission of a felony because the allegation in the information that the accused carried a firearm was insufficient to charge the elements of aggravated assault holding that counsel was deficient when he failed to object to error in jury charge referring to aggravated assault when the charge was assault on a public servant holding charge of kidnapping multiplicitous with aggravated assault because it was one continuous act of force