WICHITA, Kansas -- In Kansas right now, there is a shocking case of a man who allegedly spread HIV intentionally. Cities across the country are dealing with this same issue. But there is a fine line when it comes to proving such a case.

Robert Richardson, 29, is accused of having sex with four Lawrence women, knowing he could infect them with HIV.

"I’m not going to tell this person I’m infected, but we’re going to engage in intercourse. Does that complete the crime? We think it does," said Charles Branson, Douglas County district attorney.

That crime, a low-level felony in Kansas, is for intentionally "exposing another to a life-threatening disease." In addition to Lawrence, Richardson faces similar charges in Emporia and Missouri. At least two apparent victims testified to initially meeting Richardson online then continuing some form of relationship leading to sex.

"All the trauma and pain leading up to that is a lot for these women to deal with and handle mentally," said Branson.

Richardson’s defense will likely straddle the fine line between ignorance and negligence.

"Here, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the accused intended to make love or procreate, but specifically that the accused intended to use the disease as a weapon," said legal analyst and Wichita attorney, Dan Monnat.

That could be tough since statistics show most HIV is spread by the newly infected who simply don’t know it. That’s one quarter of the one million people infected with HIV in the United States.

A Kansas study indicates that our state has 1,000 people have no idea they have HIV.

"It’s all those people that don’t know they are infected, that their viral load is through the roof, that they’re continuing behaviors with other people," said Cody Patton, Positive Directions.

But prosecutors say Richardson knew of his condition. Still, there is little doubt that the responsibility of any victim will be debated in court.

"You just can’t meet somebody and go have unprotected sex with them," said Patton.

Common sense would argue that using a disease as a weapon should be illegal. That doesn’t, however, stem the fallout that arises from having such a law. Among those issues -- public health -- and whether new HIV patients will be discouraged from informing past sex partners.

"When, in effect, the high risk individual may be incriminating him or herself," said Monnat.

"It’s a matter of public safety," says Branson.

Public safety, they say, for potential victims -- a new consequence for those with a deadly secret.

The law does not require potential victims to actually contract the HIV virus. The women in this case have, so far, tested negative.