Opinion ID: 2378023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Badgering during cross-examination

Text: McCaslin argues that the prosecutor badgered him during cross-examination. The State paints the episode as a fair cross-examination of a combative and uncooperative witness. During trial, the prosecutor's cross-examination of McCaslin developed into a heated exchange. The court took a recess to instruct the parties and witness on how to conduct the remainder of the examination. McCaslin cites various portions of the examination, including the following: [PROSECUTOR:] Mr. McCaslin, there is blood on the back here which is on the rear of your pants on the inside. Is that a soak through, too, Mr. McCaslin? [MCCASLIN:] It looks like a soak through to me. How else would it get there? [PROSECUTOR:] Well, it would get there by you having your pants down around your waist and pressing your body up against a woman who is bleeding. [MCCASLIN:] No, you are wrong. [PROSECUTOR:] It wouldn't? [MCCASLIN:] If I was pressing my body up against a woman, why would the blood stains be on the back of the pants [PROSECUTOR:] Because the pants are [MCCASLIN:]on the inside? [PROSECUTOR:] Because the pants are down around your ankles, Mr. McCaslin, because you were raping her. [MCCASLIN:] Oh, is that right? [PROSECUTOR:] Well explain to us how it gets back there. [MCCASLIN:] I've already explained it to you. [PROSECUTOR:] You are a blood expert now? [MCCASLIN:] Are you? [DEFENSE ATTORNEY:] Your honor [PROSECUTOR:] You act like . . . . A. [MCCASLIN:] Well, you weren't there. I was. How many bodies have you walked in on like that? Q. [PROSECUTOR:] Mr. McCaslin, you've walked in on more bodies like that than I have. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. [MCCASLIN:] Well, you are assuming that I have. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well [PROSECUTOR]: He's already said he was there, Judge. THE COURT: Nonresponsive answer to the question. Let's get back to the question/answer format. On at least two occasions, the prosecutor reminded McCaslin that the prosecutor, not McCaslin, was asking the questions on cross-examination. In partial response to McCaslin's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, the State points out that McCaslin sua sponte attempted, on several occasions, to stand up and demonstrate events to the jury. As evidenced by the following authorities, we conclude the prosecutor engaged in conduct inconsistent with a servant of the law and a representative of the people of Kansas, i.e., misconduct. See State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, 510, 996 P.2d 321 (2000); State v. Bryant, 285 Kan. 970, 978-79, 179 P.3d 1122 (2008). While McCaslin was admittedly evasive and often combative in his answers, Kansas prosecutors are held to higher standards than criminal defendants. For example, while McCaslin admittedly asked the prosecutor how many bodies the prosecutor had walked in on like that, we see no valid reason, or evidentiary basis, for the prosecutor to respond that McCaslin has walked in on more bodies like that than I have. See Rule 3.4(e) of Supreme Court Rules Relating to Discipline of Attorneys (KRPC) (A lawyer shall not . . . (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence.) (2010 Kan. Ct. Annot. 552); State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 88, 91 P.3d 1204 (2004). Additionally, the prosecutor's response appeared to suggest that McCaslin was a disreputable character and, perhaps, had even killed like this before. In State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351, 204 P.3d 585 (2009), we stated: When a prosecutor argues facts that are not in evidence, this court has consistently found that `the first prong of the prosecutorial misconduct test is met.' See State v. Ly, 277 Kan. 386, Syl. ¶ 4, 85 P.3d 1200, cert. denied 541 U.S. 1090, 124 S.Ct. 2822, 159 L.Ed.2d 254 (2004) (statement made in closing argument not supported by evidence at trial; court proceeded to second step in prosecutorial misconduct analysis: whether statement constituted plain error); State v. Gardner, 264 Kan. 95, 106-07, 955 P.2d 1199 (1998) (same). In State v. Smith, 258 Kan. 321, 323-24, 904 P.2d 999 (1995), after noting Rule 3.4(e), we held that the prosecutor's reference to the Bible in his question during cross-examination of defendant was clearly improper, but not reversible, conduct. In Tosh, 278 Kan. at 86, 91 P.3d 1204, we reviewed the prosecutor's question during cross-examination of a defense witness: Well, we've rested our case, so we've proven that he raped his daughter, kidnapped his daughter and raped her again. You're aware of that, right? Defense counsel objected. We eventually held that [a]lthough not directed to the jury, it was obviously an attempt to prejudice the defendant and constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. 278 Kan. at 87, 91 P.3d 1204. Now that we have established the existence of prosecutorial misconduct, we proceed to step two of the analysis: whether the misconduct was of sufficient magnitude to require reversal and a new trial. White, 284 Kan. at 340, 161 P.3d 208; State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 64, 105 P.3d 1222 (2005). We hold that the prosecutor's conduct was gross and flagrant. While a close question, we hold that it was not motivated by the prosecutor's ill will. We acknowledge he was dealing with a difficult witness and responding to questions asked by McCaslin. Indeed, during the hearing on the motion for new trial, the prosecutor admitted that I've been doing this [prosecuting] for quite some time and there isn't any more belligerent defendant that I've ever cross-examined than Mr. McCaslin. Whether this otherwise constituted reversible misconduct, i.e., after reviewing the amount of the evidence in light of the state and federal standards, as articulated in Tosh, will be discussed later in the opinion.