Opinion ID: 2453676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Detective Austin's Testimony

Text: Simmons' next claim of prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the prosecutor's direct examination of Detective John Austin. After exploring how he became involved in the case, the prosecutor asked Detective Austin what he did next. Detective Austin replied: [Detective Austin]: Mr. Simmons had finished hiswas finishing his written statement. I talked with other officers, Officer Martin. Also, I called the County Attorney's office, spoke with them, determined probable cause [Defense]: Objection. [Court]: Sustained. [Prosecutor]: Tell me [Court]: Move along. [Prosecutor]:what you did next. Actually, what you did next. Simmons claims the prosecutor intentionally elicited testimony from Detective Austin for injecting his personal opinion that probable cause existed to believe Simmons committed the crimes. The State responds that Detective Austin exceeded the scope of an otherwise valid question. In agreeing with the State, the Court of Appeals panel determined that the prosecutor's question was not improper and noted that nothing in the record indicated that the prosecutor intentionally elicited this response from the detective. Simmons, 2009 WL 981685, at . As noted by the court, our decision in State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, 184 P.3d 903 (2008), is of guidance. There, a trooper testified that he became frustrated when a vehicle occupant denied that the smell of marijuana was present. The prosecutor asked the trooper to explain why he was frustrated, and the trooper concluded his response by saying, `People will lie about something just so simple.' 286 Kan. at 386-87, 184 P.3d 903. The defendant claimed the trooper's comment was improper and the prosecutor's questioning constituted misconduct. Even though the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal by objecting, we noted that the prosecutor's questions of the trooper were appropriate because the prosecutor did not ask a question that in any way attempted to elicit testimony from [the trooper] regarding [defendant's] credibility. 286 Kan. at 389, 184 P.3d 903. Similar to Fewell, the prosecutor in this case asked a witness to explain a previous statement. The prosecutor's question[W]hat you did next[?]was innocuous and did not call for any objectionable response on its face. The prosecutor was attempting to have Detective Austin explain the chronological sequence of events in this case and Austin's involvement in them. It was not prosecutorial misconduct. Nevertheless, it should be avoided on remand.