Opinion ID: 2624540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Improper Vouching for Witnesses

Text: Brinklow contends that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the State's witnesses in closing argument. With respect to the psychologist, the prosecutor said: Well, she wasn't diagnosing or even saying who committed the sexual abuse. She was just diagnosing this child and what was wrong with her. That's all she was doing and I think that her testimony was reliable. It was credible and as I'll show you more Given State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, 996 P.2d 321 (2000), and its progeny, scant doubt should remain among prosecutors in this State that it is wholly improper to tell the jury that the prosecutor thinks a witness is reliable and credible. Here, the trial court recognized the impropriety and interrupted counsel to point out that he could not tell the jury that he found the psychologist's testimony to be reliable, albeit the court did not admonish the jury. Cf. State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624, 642, 88 P.3d 218 (2004) (reversal not required where the trial court sustains an objection and admonishes the jury to disregard the objectionable testimony, ... unless the remarks are so prejudicial as to be incurable). While finding the prosecutor's remarks to be improper, the Court of Appeals majority opined that it was neither gross nor flagrant, that it was not the product of ill will, and that it was, therefore, not plain error requiring reversal. Brinklow, slip op. at 20-21. We agree that, standing alone, the improper argument would not mandate reversal. However, it is a factor to be considered in assessing the cumulative effect of trial errors, especially in the absence of a specific admonition to the jury. In addition, Brinklow complains about the following comments on A.C.'s testimony: What [A.C.] said yesterday is what you have to consider ... She said that after she'd been sworn to tell the truth she has told consistent stories. We will not belabor the analysis of that comment. The statement merely relates what the victim said, and it resides well within the boundaries of fair comment on the evidence.