Opinion ID: 2453676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prosecutor's comment on defense witness during closing argument

Text: Simmons' final claim of prosecutorial misconduct, like the showering comment, arose during the prosecutor's closing argument. When discussing the witnesses and testimony presented at trial, the prosecutor commented on defense witness Scott Debusk, Jr.'s testimony: And the last witness, Scott Debusk, Junior, I would submit to you, was just a last-ditch effort to smearas a smear campaign of the victim. Simmons claims the prosecutor's comment about the purpose of Debusk's testimony was improper. The State responds the comment was a reasonable inference based on Debusk's testimony and that the prosecutor was properly arguing why certain evidence should not be considered. The Court of Appeals panel agreed with the State, determining that the prosecutor's comment was not objectionable because it was part of the broader context in which the prosecutor asked the jury to ignore the defense's attempt to cast[] a poor light on the victim and cloud the evidence. 2009 WL 981685, at . From the record it appears Debusk's purpose in testifying was to inform the jury that A.H. befriended persons who manufactured methamphetamine. He testified he knew A.H. because he met her while she was living with his cousin, who later was imprisoned for manufacturing meth. After the State objected on relevance grounds, the court asked defense counsel to explain the relevance or it would sustain the objection. The defense counsel replied, All right. Defendant has nothing further and ended the examination. We agree the prosecutor asked the jury to consider Debusk's brief testimony as part of a smear campaign of A.H. We have said that a prosecutor crosses the threshold of appropriate argument when the argument diverts the jury's attention from its duty to decide the case on the evidence and controlling law. Martinez, 290 Kan. at 1014-15, 236 P.3d 481. Here, however, he appeared to be asking the jury to reject Debusk's testimony and consider the case on the other evidence. While the prosecutor's comments therefore do not constitute misconduct, should Debusk similarly testify again on remand, the prosecutor should avoid such comments. Reversed and remanded for new trial. CARL B. ANDERSON, JR., District Judge, assigned.