Opinion ID: 2353917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: ISSUE 2: Did the prosecutor commit misconduct during cross-examination of the defendant's brother?

Text: Next, Inkelaar contends the prosecutor committed misconduct during cross-examination of his brother, Tyrone, who testified on behalf of the defense. The procedural background of the argument is that K.M., one of the victims of Inkelaar's alleged prior sexual abuse, indicated she had also been sexually assaulted by Tyrone. During cross-examination of Tyrone, the prosecutor questioned Tyrone about the statute of limitations on the prosecution of these prior acts. Because the alleged acts of Inkelaar and Tyrone involving K.M. occurred during the same time frame, Inkelaar now argues for the first time on appeal that the prosecutor's questions about the statute of limitations clearly signaled to the jury that the State believed the law precluded prosecution of [Inkelaar] for his past crimes against B.W. and K.M. and encouraged the jury to punish [Inkelaar] in the present case for actions he may have committed in the past.