Opinion ID: 2624120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: refusing to allow defense counsel to argue the timing of the trial in closing

Text: Clem Hollingsworth was killed in February 1998. Francis was tried for the murder in November 2003. During defense counsel's closing argument, he stated: You saw Detective Daniels interview with Mike Williams. We all had to sit through it. And I asked him on cross-examination, Why, did you get any new evidence since 1998? And the only thing he could come up with is Tony Gillihan, which really isn't new evidence. So you're going to have to decide for yourselves back in that jury room why are we just now dealing with John Francis. The State objected on the ground of relevance. Defense counsel defended his statement as relevant: Cause you can look at Detective Daniels in that Mike Williams' interview and decide why we are dealing with this case. The trial judge sustained the objection, telling the jury to disregard defense counsel's statement. An edited videorecording of Daniels' interview of Mike Williams, who was a suspect and an unavailable witness, was played during trial. Defense counsel questioned Daniels about what had been seen on the recording: Q. You told Mike Williams you had people who saw him thereby there. I'm assuming you are referring to the scene? A. That's correct. Q. And who was it that saw him at the crime scene? A. No one. Q. So that was a lie? A. Yes, it was. The defendant's position is that [t]he implication from the interview with Williams is that the police still did not have any idea nor any evidence of who was shooting at [Hollingsworth] the night of the murder. Defense counsel seems to believe that the jury was told to disregard what he said about Daniels' interview of Williams and about Gillihan as well as his suggestion that it was the jury's obligation to decide why so much time elapsed between the murder and the trial. But it appears that the State objected and the trial court told the jury to disregard only defense counsel's saying, So you're going to have to decide for yourselves back in that jury room why are we just now dealing with John Francis. And the State believes that the trial court's instruction applied only to this last sentence. The scope of oral argument generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court's rulings will form no basis for a reversal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Kuone, 243 Kan. 218, 234, 757 P.2d 289 (1988). In Kuone, a child sexual abuse case, defense counsel was prohibited from asking the jury during closing argument why authorities had not investigated, apprehended, and charged any other persons with whom the victim indicated she had had sexual contacts. This court approved the trial court's giving the defendant broad leeway to stress F.S.'s statements relating to sexual contacts with persons other than the defendant but prohibiting speculation upon why the State had failed to apprehend and prosecute other individuals. 243 Kan. at 233-34, 757 P.2d 289. The matter of why others had not been charged was outside of the evidence, outside of the issues in this trial, and wholly immaterial. 243 Kan. at 234, 757 P.2d 289. Likewise, in the present case, Daniels' interview of Williams and Gillihan's testimony were part of the evidence, but speculation as to why several years elapsed between Hollingsworth's murder and Francis' trial was outside the evidence and immaterial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jurors to disregard defense counsel's urging them to decide why there had been a delay.