Opinion ID: 2639278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Appeal to Community Interests

Text: The defendant complains the prosecutor improperly appealed to community interests with the following comments: There are certain types of felonies that are so dangerous that our legislature has decided that if people are going to commit those kind of felonies, then they're going to be held responsible for the deaths or the injuries or the consequences that occur during the commission of those felonies. The purpose of the law is to hold those people accountable even for reckless acts. The State is not claiming that Mr. Finley intended to kill LaDonna Jones that morning. Even if it was a reckless act though, an unintended killing, it was still a killing during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony and our law says that he is to be held responsible for that killing. That's what felony murder is. We don't want people making meth in our communities. The defendant objected and the court sustained the objection. Then, the prosecutor continued with the following: The rationale behind the felony murder rule is to prevent people from making meth in our community. This time, the defendant's objection was overruled. Later, the prosecutor closed her arguments with the following: He's not accepting responsibility for what he did. And his behaviors are exactly why we have this felony murder rule. He cannot expect to get away with this killing. He was involved in the commission of a very, very dangerous felony, one that our law says is an inherently dangerous one. And as a result, a fire broke out and killed LaDonna Jones. And if you follow the judge's instructions on that law, then you must find him guilty of not only intentionally manufacturing or making methamphetamine, but also hold him responsible for LaDonna's death because of that. Thank you. The defendant did not object to this argument. In summing up a case before a jury, the prosecutor may not introduce or comment on the facts outside the evidence, but reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence and considerable latitude is allowed in discussing it. State v. Duke, 256 Kan. 703, 720, 887 P.2d 110 (1994). The comment that the defendant was not accepting responsibility for his actions is a comment based on a fair inference drawn from the evidence. The inference is that the defendant was not telling the truth with his story that he was elsewhere when the fire broke out. Such an inference is permissible based on testimony presented by the State's witnesses who were in and about the house prior to the fire, including Pugh, LaMae, Rader, and Scarlett. Moreover, when the prosecutor was discussing how manufacturing methamphetamine is an inherently dangerous felony, she was commenting upon the trial court's instructions. The prosecutor's comments asking the jury not to let the defendant get away with the crime is in most instances permissible comment. In State v. Cravatt, 267 Kan. 314, 332, 979 P.2d 679 (1999), we considered closing arguments wherein the prosecutor said: Don't let a murderer go free because of these half-baked theories the defense has presented to you. The court characterized the statement as follows: Rather than promise dire consequences if the defendant was set free, the remarks asked the jury not to let a person who had, from the evidence, committed murder go free simply because of the defendant's highly implausible statements. 267 Kan. at 333. Similarly, the prosecutor's comment in this case was not an appeal to community interests in the sense that a not guilty verdict would have some sort of negative impact on the community. Rather, the prosecutor was arguing the defendant should not escape responsibility for this crime based on his highly implausible story that he just happened to show up very early in the morning just seconds after the fire had started, having no knowledge of the methamphetamine lab in his house. The prosecutor's comment [w]e don't want people making meth in our communities and the comment regarding the prevention of people from making meth in our community were improper in that such comments inferentially ask the jury to render a verdict to protect the community. However, when these comments are considered in the context of the entire argument, they do not amount to reversible error. These comments relate to the dangerousness of the act of manufacturing methamphetamine, an act mentioned in the trial court's instructions and thereafter fair comment by a prosecutor. Here, the comments go too far, but in light of the record as a whole and the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the comments had little if any likelihood of changing the result of the trial. See State v. McCorkendale, 267 Kan. 263, 278-79, 979 P.2d 1239 (1999).