Opinion ID: 1187781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: prosecutor remarks

Text: During closing argument, the prosecutor made the following statement: There's all kinds of evidence with regard to how many times they ran over Mr. Ayon. We have Jose Avalos, who was there telling us. We have the doctor telling Dr. Melin telling us. We have Adam Valdez telling us. The defense counsel objected on the ground that Valdez had not made any statements to the jury. The court instructed the prosecutor to identify the witnesses who made the statements. The prosecutor continued: I apologize, Your Honor. I think that Carlos Valencia indicated that he had spoken with [Valdez] and [Valdez] indicated that they had run [Ayon] over several times. So, we do have that. Valdez contends that the misstatement by the prosecutor called attention to the fact that he did not testify at trial. He argues that the trial court had a duty to admonish the jury to disregard the statement. The prosecutor's misstatement was clearly an inadvertent error which he promptly corrected. The correction obviated any need for further admonishment by the court. Under the circumstances, further attention by the court would have only exacerbated the error. The court did not err in failing to give an admonishment. Valdez also takes issue with a statement by the prosecutor during closing argument regarding the testimony of Carlos Valencia. Valencia testified on behalf of the State in hopes of favorably influencing plea negotiations in a pending criminal case against him. Regarding Valencia's testimony, the prosecutor stated: Then, Carlos Valencia. I didn't make any deals with him. He'she can call it whathe can call me a liar if he wants to because he's called everybody else one but I didn't make a deal with him. I have never made a deal with that man. To this day, there's no deal. Never has been. He's crying. When he's in the Police Department, this big, tough gangster's crying his eyes out, not because he's afraid of the police but because he's afraid of all these people? The defense counsel objected, and the prosecutor continued, All these people, gangsters. The objection was then overruled. Valdez contends that the statement regarding Valencia's reason for crying in his police statement was a statement of facts not in evidence. Furthermore, he argues, the characterization of Valencia and his friends as gangsters was erroneous and prejudicial. Carlos Valencia testified that when he gave a statement to the police regarding his knowledge of the crime against Ayon, he cried. He further testified that he had been reluctant to cooperate with the police in obtaining a recorded confession from Valdez and Avalos because he was afraid of Valdez and Valdez' friends. Valdez contends that the prosecutor's comments are not grounded in fact because Valencia did not testify that the reason he cried at the police station was because he was afraid of Valdez' friends. In closing argument, the prosecutor may comment on the evidence and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. The inference that Valencia cried at the police station because he was afraid of Valdez' friends is a reasonable inference from Valencia's testimony. Regarding term gangster in closing, Valdez argues he had never been adjudicated a juvenile offender, so the term is factually inaccurate. The State defines gangster as gang member, and Valdez defines the word as criminal. Certainly, the term gangsters has both connotations. Neither connotation is outside reasonable inferences from the evidence in this case. Most of the witnesses to the events at the party on Chesterfield Street admitted to Y.C. gang membership. Others, who denied gang membership, were identified by police as gang members. Most admitted to criminal activities, whether or not those activities resulted in adjudications or convictions. Fair comment on evidence should not be discouraged. The prosecution can make comments on the evidence so long as the comments are confined to the evidence and reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the evidence. State v. Graham, 247 Kan. 388, 397, 799 P.2d 1003 (1990). In criminal trials, the prosecution is given wide latitude in language and in manner or presentation of closing argument as long as it is consistent with the evidence adduced. Improper remarks made by the prosecutor in closing argument are grounds for reversal only when they are so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the defendant and to deny the defendant a fair trial. State v. Baacke, 261 Kan. 422, Syl. ¶ 4, 932 P.2d 396 (1997). In closing argument, the prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but may not comment upon facts outside the evidence. Counsel may make impassioned appeals to the jury, but should not inject issues broader than the accused's guilt or innocence or make predictions about the consequences of the jury's verdict. 261 Kan. 422, Syl. ¶ 5. The prosecutor's remarks refer to facts in evidence and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Therefore, in this case, the prosecutor's remarks were not error.