Opinion ID: 2453676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prosecutor's initial remarks during voir dire

Text: Simmons' next claim of prosecutorial misconduct occurred during a colloquy in the early stages of voir dire: [Prosecutor]: I, like the Judge said, this is about a girl named [A.H.] that was kidnapped and raped a couple of times. [Defense]: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach the bench? [Court]: Come forward. After approaching, defense counsel explained he objected because rape was only an allegation: [Defense]: I object to the statement. He is telling them that this person has been raped. That is a decision for the jurors to make. That is an allegation only. [Court]: I agree. I agree. You need to preface this, `the State's allegations are.' [Prosecutor]: All right. [Court]: You stated it as if it's a fact. So I will sustain the objection and instruct you to use the word `allege' or something of that nature. [Prosecutor]: All right. [Court]: Thank you. Back in the presence of the jury panel, the prosecutor resumed his voir dire with different language: [Prosecutor]: Like I said, the Judge told you what the nature of the charges are and what the State is alleging, that a rape occurred after a kidnap. Rape is not about sex. It's about control and it's about anger, and we are going to talk a lot about that. So this may shade your views of sex for the time being. (Emphasis added.) Simmons argues that the prosecutor's initial comment prejudiced his right to a fair trial because it asserted that the charged offenses were true and amounted to the personal opinion of the prosecutor of Mr. Simmons' guilt. He correctly points out that no jury admonition was given. The State essentially responds that the jury would realize the State believed Simmons was the perpetrator; otherwise, he would not be the one on trial. The Court of Appeals panel determined it need not decide whether the prosecutor's comment was improper because it did not amount to plain error. More specifically, it held, because of the court's sustaining the objection, there was no reversible error unless defendant established the error was so prejudicial as to be incurable. Simmons, 2009 WL 981685, at  (citing Gleason, 277 Kan. at 642, 88 P.3d 218). It also found the comment did not indicate gross and flagrant conduct or ill will toward defendant. The prosecutor's comment is analogous to one in State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 202 P.3d 658 (2009). During voir dire, the prosecutor was explaining the difference between civil and criminal trials when he commented that an accused person, ` whether they're guilty or not, has a right to have a jury trial, even guilty people. ' 288 Kan. at 324, 202 P.3d 658. We acknowledged the appellant made a valid point that the statement, in isolation, undermined the presumption of innocence by suggesting he was guilty before the trial commenced. However, we noted that the prosecutor's entire statement surrounding the excerpt clearly placed the burden on the State to prove guilt and clearly articulated the presumption of innocence. 288 Kan. at 324, 202 P.3d 658. We further noted that in voir dire the prosecutor did not emphasize the defendant's guilt or ever attempt to shift onto him the burden of proof. Accordingly, we held the statement was not outside the bounds of permissible statements. 288 Kan. at 324-25, 202 P.3d 658. Here, the prosecutor stated the victim had been kidnapped and raped. He did not suggest as strongly as in McReynolds that the defendant was guilty of committing those crimes. Moreover, given our system of criminal justice, all potential jurors should recognize that the State believes the defendant committed the crime because it filed charges against the defendant and proceeded to trial. Additionally, after a proper objection and ruling, here the prosecutor immediately corrected his statement. Later during his voir dire, as in McReynolds, he again explained that the State bore the burden of proof on the rape and kidnapping charges. Under these circumstances, we hold that the prosecutor's statement concerning the rape and kidnapping without referring to them as alleged is not misconduct. Nevertheless, the statement should not be repeated on remand.