Opinion ID: 2499407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Attempting to Shift the Burden of Proof

Text: Peppers next argues that the prosecutor impermissibly attempted to shift the burden of proof to the defense. Kansas courts deem it `improper for the prosecutor to attempt to shift the burden of proof to the defendant or to misstate the legal standard of the burden of proof.' [Citation omitted.] But we grant prosecutors considerable latitude to address the weaknesses of the defense. [Citations omitted.] Duong, 292 Kan. at 832, 257 P.3d 309. Moreover, this court may consider whether the prosecutor's remark is ... made in response to defense counsel's remarks. Miller, 293 Kan. at 551, 264 P.3d 461. The prosecutor's comment must be evaluated in context and can be mitigated by jury instructions regarding the burden of proof. State v. Cosby, 293 Kan. 121, 137, 262 P.3d 285 (2011). When a prosecutor's comment constitute[s] only a general question about the absence of evidence to rebut the State's witnesses ... not an impermissible remark about the defendant's failure to testify or an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the defense, the comment is within the wide latitude afforded to the prosecution. 293 Kan. at 136, 262 P.3d 285 (citing State v. McKinney, 272 Kan. 331, 346, 33 P.3d 234 [2001], overruled on other grounds by State v. Davis, 283 Kan. 569, 158 P.3d 317 [2006]); see also Duong, 292 Kan. at 833, 257 P.3d 309 ([I]n this case, we read the statements at issue as mere comment on the weakness of Duong's defense.). Here the prosecutor stated: Now, like I told you before and I think I have been consistent through the trial all the way through the trial, the people that witnessed this crime, the people we presented for your consideration are who they are. There's no doubt about it. Ms. Lewis was a drug addict. Is she now? I don't know. She was then. She was in the alley buying crack. Ms. Stano, same thing. They are who they are. But I think [Peppers' counsel] misses the point. The point is is there any evidence otherwise that tells you something different about what Mr. Hayes told you happened[?] Now these people given who they are could have said something else. They could have said no, it's not this guy. They could have said another name, but they didn't. This passage in the prosecutor's argument came after Pepper's counsel had urged the jury to tell the State: We want better evidence than from people like Terrell Hayes-Osby. We want better evidence than from people like a jailhouse snitch. We want more credible evidence than from people like Latiseia Stano and Stacey Lewis. Tell him in the best way you can, tell him in the best way that our system allows, tell him with pride and tell him with integrity, not guilty. When read in context, we again see no misconduct in the prosecutor's comment. The prosecutor needed to acknowledge weaknesses in his own case, which he did, and he did not call upon Peppers to present specific evidence, such as his own testimony, or to contradict the evidence presented by the State. Rather, the prosecutor pointed out that the State's witnesses, such as they were, said nothing to contradict Hayes-Osby version of events. See Cosby, 293 Kan. at 136, 262 P.3d 285. We also note that the jury was correctly instructed: [T]he State has the burden to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to prove he is not guilty. We conclude that the prosecutor permissibly argue[d] inferences based on the balance or lack of evidence. 293 Kan. at 136, 262 P.3d 285 (citing McKinney, 272 Kan. at 346, 33 P.3d 234).