Opinion ID: 2465563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Propensity Inference

Text: For his final claim of prosecutorial misconduct, Naputi asserts that the following statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments was an improper propensity inference in violation of K.S.A. 60-455: Folks, you take [B.N.]'s case and you take the five kids' cases. Mom, I've got something to tell you, and how-how strongly is it that the five kids corroborate [B.N.] and that [B.N.] corroborates the five kids. Naputi argues that the statement implied to the jury that it could find him guilty of aggravated indecent liberties against the five classmates based on the fact that he also improperly touched B.N. and vice versa. K.S.A. 60-455 deals with the admissibility of evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs. Naputi does not and could not claim that evidence of the crime perpetrated upon B.N. or evidence of the crimes perpetrated upon the five classmates was inadmissible at his consolidated trial. Accordingly, we are not presented with a K.S.A. 60-455 violation. However, the prosecutor's statement, in isolation, does run afoul of the multiple counts jury instruction, based on PIK Crim.3d 68.07, which stated in this case: Each crime charged against Patrick P.L. Naputi is a separate and distinct offense. You must decide each charge separately on the evidence and law applicable to it, uninfluenced by your decision as to any other charge. Patrick P.L. Naputi may be convicted or acquitted on any or all of the offenses charged. Nevertheless, we must again view the prosecutor's comments in the context of the defense arguments. Naputi contended that the five classmates conspired to falsify their allegations of improper touching. The fact that B.N. made a totally unrelated claim that Naputi engaged in the same type of conduct as the classmates alleged would obviously tend to refute the defense's conspiracy theory. An argument to that effect would not have exceeded the bounds of fair play. Where the prosecutor went awry in this instance was in saying that the victims corroborated each other, rather than saying the two, separate allegations were inconsistent with a conspiracy. However, we cannot declare that the misuse of the word corroborate was gross and flagrant misconduct or the product of ill will. Moreover, the jury was instructed to look at each count separately, uninfluenced by the other charges. We are firmly convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not affect the outcome of this trial.