Opinion ID: 1421838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: defendant's motion for a mistrial

Text: During cross-examination of the complaining witness, a colloquy between counsel followed the making of an objection to a question asked of the witness. Counsel for the defendant, referring to the witness, said, [I]t's her case. The court responded: Well, the impropriety, Mr. Holland, is to characterize it as her case. It's not her case, it's the State's case and it's the State that has the responsibility ... to produce the evidence, not Miss [B]. She was the victim. Counsel for the defendant then moved for a mistrial during a conference out of the hearing of the jury, and the court denied the motion. Defendant argues that it was improper for the court to state that it was the State's case, not Miss B's case. Since all prosecutions for violation of state law are conducted in the name of the State of Kansas, K.S.A. 22-2104, the trial court was correct. Defendant also argues that the trial court should not have referred to Miss B as the victim. There was no dispute but that Miss B had been the victim of a violent attack; the dispute lay with whether or not defendant was the assailant. The trial court did not prejudice the defense with this remark. Defendant further argues that the trial court prevented the defendant from cross-examining Miss B as to the basis for her opinion that defendant was her attacker. The court's ruling, however, did not have that effect. Defense counsel was free to pursue the matter if he chose to do so. The court did not prevent the defense from cross-examining the witness as to the basis for her expressed opinion. We find no error.