Opinion ID: 2498965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Challenged Comments

Text: The State's prosecution theory was that Anderson shot Williams because he got into an argument with Anderson's friend, Peppers, and the shooting of Burnette was an unintended consequence from Williams' shooting. Anderson denied he was the shooter and argued several people had motive to kill Williams, citing the confrontations Williams had with other people that night. During closing argument, Anderson's counsel disputed that Anderson was the shooter and emphasized that Williams was loud, carried a knife, and had gotten into confrontations with several different people the night he was killed. Defense counsel also argued that whoever killed Williams did it in the heat of passion, stating: Well the man who got shot is a man who was armed with a pretty dangerous knife, man who had carried the knife hidden as he approached, somebody with whom he had been arguing. He actually follows the guy, kind of tracks the guy down, so would a reasonable observer . . . perceive Mr. Williams as a potential threat, a serious potential threat. Don't you think so? In rebuttal, the prosecutor noted that Williams was not on trial. She also stated: Now, you know, on that night Robert Williams didn't have to die. And he didn't certainly didn't deserve to die to be gunned down and to die in the street without any dignity. But despite the fact that he had a knife and he had it tucked away and in his pants pocket at the time he was shot, despite that fact that he was still defenseless. He was defenseless because his guard was down. . . . He didn't know the defendant was pulling up in a car in the street, saw him, jumped up, came up from behind him with a gun and was able to start shooting at him. . . . But, you know, he was defenseless. At that point he was taken by surprise when shot in the back but he's not defenseless today because he has the criminal justice system with him and he has the truth with him. The truth will be his redemption here in this courtroom. So we ask ourselves why did [Anderson] shoot and kill Robert Williams? Was it because he was trying to be a big man? Trying to show that he wasn't afraid of anyone? Trying to show that no one disrespects his boy? That he isn't going to let someone pull a knife and argue with one of his friends? You know premeditation was interrupted. It was. But he picked it up again first chance he had. But he's not a big man. He's a little, little man who used a cowardly ambush in order to shoot and kill a man, father, son, a brother and a husband who had no idea it was coming.  (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals held these comments were not improper because the evidence established that Williams was shot in the back five times while standing in the street, and Anderson's ex-girlfriend testified that Anderson told her he shot Williams because he stepped to his boy. The Court of Appeals essentially found that the prosecutor's statements were provoked and made in response to defense counsel's statement. Anderson, 2009 WL 793019, at . We agree that the substance of the prosecutor's argument properly summarized the evidence, but we find the italicized comments were nevertheless improper. In closing argument, a prosecutor may comment on admitted evidence as long as the remarks accurately reflect the evidence, accurately state the law, and are not intended to inflame the jury's passions or prejudices or divert the jury from its duty to decide the case based on the evidence and controlling law. State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, Syl. ¶ 3, 269 P.3d 1268 (2012). The statement that the victim's redemption would come with a guilty verdict is an appeal to emotion that attempts to pressure a verdict from the jury out of pity for the victim, rather than the defendant's guilt, and is an attempt to divert the jury's attention from the evidence. This statement is akin to the prosecutor's call to the jury to tell a child rape victim that she did the right thing by reporting the crime and an appeal to give the victim justice. See State v. Martinez, 290 Kan. 992, 1013-14, 236 P.3d 481 (2010) (There is no question the prosecutor's closing remark injects irrelevant decision-making into the jury process.); State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 425, 172 P.3d 1165 (2007) (touchstone is whether the argument seeks to divert the jury from the evidence and obtain a conviction based on sympathy); State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608, 641, 44 P.3d 466 (2002) (reference to mother's grief designed to inflame jury's passions). We hold that the prosecutor's redemption comment, coupled with the demeaning reference to defendant as a little, little man, constitute improper statements, so we move to the second step of the prosecutorial misconduct analysis to determine whether Anderson was denied a fair trial. It is a close call whether these comments, taken together, were gross or flagrant or demonstrated ill will. The comment that defendant is a little, little man, obviously is demeaning, and it seems equally obvious that it is improper to imply that a conviction will serve as the victim's redemption. But there was substantial evidence of Anderson's guilt, and it is unlikely these isolated comments, which were in rebuttal and not part of an obvious pattern of misconduct by the prosecution, would have affected the jury's determination. Thus, we hold that the prosecutor's statements were improper, but that the error does not require reversal of Anderson's convictions.