Opinion ID: 2599107
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conduct During Trial

Text: During defense counsel Wood's cross-examination of KBI Agent Williams concerning a memorandum on interrogation techniques, the following exchange occurred: Q. And you've already testified that Stu Hite read Miranda rights to Mr. Kleypas? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Then it goes on Mr. BORK [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning because this gets into dealing with whether it is a free and voluntary confession which the Court has already ruled upon. Mr. WOOD: Judge, I object to that statement. That is improper under Crane v. Kentucky . (Emphasis added.) Following the objections, a heated argument occurred at the bench. Wood requested a mistrial, which the court took under advisement. The trial court agreed with prosecutor Bork that the defense counsel could not discuss the legal requirements concerning admissibility of a confession but agreed with Wood that he could raise questions concerning the circumstances surrounding the confession. The trial court instructed the jury: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are to disregard Mr. Bork's comments in his last objection. You as the jury have the right to consider all the surrounding circumstances of the defendant's statement and you may give what weight you desire to those surrounding circumstances. Kleypas correctly argues that his counsel had a right to litigate issues surrounding the voluntariness and reliability of Kleypas' confession under Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 90 L. Ed.2d 636, 106 S. Ct. 2142 (1986), and K.S.A. 22-3215(5). He further argues that it is inconceivable that the prosecution was unaware of the law and that this incident must be considered as evidence of the prosecutor's ill will in addressing the overall pattern of misconduct. The trial court in addressing the motion for mistrial, stated: So we start with the premise the defendant is completely entitled to present the surrounding circumstances of the confession to the jury. That is an undeniable. I told you that when you came up to the bench for the side bar, ... that is what the Court allowed, I didn't restrict the defendant in giving this information to the jury, the defendant was entitled to fully explore the surrounding circumstances that attend the statement in issue. Indeed the Court instructed the jury to that very effect. Now, I don't think the jury has been prevented from considering the surrounding circumstances. They have been advised that they can give the appropriate weight to the surrounding circumstances that they deem appropriate. I believe they will and I believe they can do this. I believe that Mr. Bork's comments did not convey to the jury that they are precluded from doing this. So the request for mistrial will be denied. Our review of the heated exchange between counsel and the record involving this claim does not support a finding of ill will on the part of the prosecutor. While the objection by the prosecutor may have been improper, defense counsel was able to fully litigate the issue of the weight and credibility the jury should give Kleypas' confession and the jurors were clearly informed that it was within their province as fact finders to make that determination. Finally, the jury was instructed by the court to disregard the comments of the prosecutor. Under these circumstances, no prejudicial error occurred.