Opinion ID: 2598039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was there Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Text: Next, Morningstar argues the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments when the prosecutor commented that Morningstar left B.M. unsupervised in the bathtub. Defendant argues these statements referred to evidence that was not in the record, and implied Morningstar attempted to inflict additional harm on the child. We find this argument fails under the prosecutorial misconduct test because the statements at issue did not exceed the wide latitude given prosecutors during closing arguments and the statements were not plain error. This prosecutorial misconduct claim arises from the following statements made during closing arguments: The defendant caused this injury by penetrating [B.M.'s] vagina with such a force that her genitals ripped. Then he laid her in a bathtub and left her alone. During this critical medical emergency, the defendant doesn't take [B.M.] to the hospital. He doesn't call 911. He doesn't even stay next to her and comfort her. What he does do is he leaves her alone in the bathtub. He calls B.M.'s mother to come home from work and take care of the situation he caused. Then he cleans up the mess. Morningstar did not contemporaneously object to the State's comments, but a timely objection is not required to preserve a prosecutorial misconduct claim that occurs during closing statements. State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349, 204 P.3d 585 (2009); State v. Decker, 288 Kan. 306, 314, 202 P.3d 669 (2009). The court employs a two-step analysis regardless of whether a timely objection is made. First, the court determines whether the prosecutor's statements exceeded the wide latitude of language and manner afforded a prosecutor. Inherent in this latitude is the prosecutor's freedom to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence. Second, the court must determine whether the prosecutor's comments constitute plain error. This occurs when the statements are so gross and flagrant that they prejudiced the jury against the defendant, denying the defendant a fair trial. This requires examination of three factors: (1) whether the misconduct is so gross and flagrant it denied the accused a fair trial; (2) whether the remarks show ill will; and (3) whether the evidence against the defendant is of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the prosecutor's statements would not have much weight in the jurors' minds. Decker, 288 Kan. at 314-15, 202 P.3d 669; see State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 97-98, 91 P.3d 1204 (2004). None of these three factors is controlling. Further, the third factor can never override the first two factors until the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (prosecutor's statements were inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (error had little, if any, likelihood of changing the outcome of trial), have been met. State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 78-79, 183 P.3d 801 (2008). Morningstar argues the statements fell outside this wide latitude because, he alleges, there is no evidence Morningstar left B.M. in the bathtub unsupervised. On the other hand, the State argues the statements are a reasonable inference based on the evidence. The record reflects a detective testified Morningstar told her the following: [Morningstar] talked about using wipes as well as getting paper towels or using paper towels. He then talked about how he had taken his daughter and put her in the bathtub.... He talked about calling [B.M.'s mother] ... at work and how she had come home shortly thereafter. We believe it is reasonable to infer from the detective's testimony that she was reciting the sequence of events as given by Morningstar. It also is reasonable to infer Morningstar left the bathroom to call B.M.'s mother. Therefore, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct. But even if these statements exceeded the prosecutor's wide latitude, they still were not plain error that prejudiced Morningstar's right to a fair trial. There is no evidence of ill will, and the evidence against Morningstar was substantial. Morningstar admitted he caused B.M.'s injuries. There was significant medical testimony that a finger slip during a diaper change would not cause the injury B.M. suffered, which was the excuse Morningstar gave. He also did not accompany his injured daughter to the emergency room. The prosecutor's statements were designed to communicate a callous reaction Morningstar arguably had to B.M.'s injuries. In light of the substantial evidence against him, the prosecutor's statements did not prejudice Morningstar's defense. Finally, and because it was briefly addressed in oral argument in response to a specific question, we note Morningstar references a tangential issue in his brief that the State failed to properly identify him at trial. But this is raised only in conjunction with the State's failure to establish that Morningstar was 18 years of age or older, and mentioned only under the section of Morningstar's brief dealing with the defendant's age. No real argument is advanced, nor was there any citation to relevant case law in this regard, so we will not consider it. Issues raised in passing that are not supported with argument or cited authority are deemed waived. State v. Harned, 281 Kan. 1023, 1048, 135 P.3d 1169 (2006). In light of our holding, it is unnecessary to address Morningstar's alternative arguments regarding a disproportionate/cruel or unusual sentence and the district court's denial of his request for a downward departure sentence. Convictions affirmed, sentence as to Count One of the complaint (rape of child under 14 years of age) vacated, and case remanded for resentencing as to Count One.