Opinion ID: 2353917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Step One: Prosecutorial Misconduct

Text: Inkelaar argues misconduct occurred because the prosecutor misrepresented the legal effect of the statute of limitations relevant to the crimes at issue, K.S.A. 21-3106 (recodified at K.S.A. 21-5107, effective July 1, 2011, see L.2010, ch. 136, sec. 7). At issue are the following questions which the prosecutor asked Inkelaar's brother: If you wereif you learned that the statute of limitations was five years, would you agree with me, sir, that you could not be brought to trial for that crime?; Isn't it true that you can't be brought to trial if the statute of limitation is also five years?; and If you were told the statute of limitations for sex crimes was five years, and you were accused of doing this in 1993, isn't it true that you could not be brought to trial for that today? Inkelaar argues that even though the time limitation is 5 years, there are tolling provisions and exceptions, including an exception relating to crimes against children under the age of 15, if certain specific conditions apply. K.S.A. 21-3106(5)(f) (recodified at K.S.A. 21-5107(e)(6)(A), effective July 1, 2011, see L.2010, ch. 136, sec. 7). He adds: The irony of the State's comments was that it had charged Mr. Inkelaar with crimes dating back to 2003, which would have been time barred under the prosecutor's description of a rigid statute of limitations. We agree the prosecutor's questions were not predicated on an accurate statement of the law and were improper.