Opinion ID: 2631854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Improper Cross-examination of Defendant

Text: At trial, Diggs took the stand in her own defense. On appeal, she argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during her cross-examination by asking her to comment on the truthfulness of the State's witnesses. Twice, Diggs' objections were sustained when the prosecutor asked if a witness was lying or mistaken. However, as the State points out, Diggs largely failed to object to the manner in which she was cross-examined by the State. In State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, Syl. ¶ 2, 996 P.2d 321 (2000), we concluded that prosecutorial misconduct may be reviewed on appeal regardless of whether the issue of prosecutorial misconduct is preserved by an objection at trial. The plain error rule may be used when the prosecutor's misconduct is so prejudicial or constitutes a constitutional violation which, if not corrected, will result in injustice or a miscarriage of justice. State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 309, 978 P.2d 933 (1999). This standard of review is applicable when a prosecutor is cross-examining a defendant who has chosen to take the stand. State v. Manning, 270 Kan. 674, 697, 19 P.3d 84 (2001). Diggs cites instances involving at least six different State's witnesses. The first incident, which is representative, occurred when the prosecutor asked Diggs about the testimony of Georgia Mercklein, a co-worker. The following took place: Q. [PROSECUTOR]: Okay. So you would deny, when Georgia Mercklein told this jury that you asked for help in committing this crime, that would be true or false? A. That would be false. .... Q. And you admitted to [Betty Stamper] that you had a plan in effect to kill your husband, is that not true? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And she asked you about the plan, true? A. No, no; she didn't ask me. Q. She didn't ask about the plan. So when she testified she did ask you about the plan, was she lying or mistaken? A. She did not ask me about the detailed plan and I believe she said so in her testimony, that we discussed alternatives to this plan. .... Q. You heard the testimony of Georgia Mercklein when she told us in March of 1997, you again said, `If I could kill him and get away with it, I would do so.' Do you remember her testimony? A. I do. Q. Is that true or false? A. That is false. Q. Is she lying or mistaken? A. She is lying. Q. She is lying? A. I don't believe she's mistaken. (Emphasis added.) A review of the record shows that in her testimony, Diggs contradicted the testimony of some of the State's witnesses and agreed with testimony of others. We reject the argument that the defendant opened the door to the they were lying testimony by questions and responses given in the defendant's direct testimony. See Manning, 270 Kan. at 701. The prosecutor's asking Diggs if other witnesses lied or were mistaken was improper. See Manning, 270 Kan. at 702. Had the prosecutor merely asked about her previous statements to witnesses, allowing the jury to draw its own conclusions regarding the witnesses' credibility, the cross-examination would have been unobjectionable. See United States v. Boyd, 54 F.3d 868, 871 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Our analysis of prosecutorial misconduct requires an examination of whether the improper questions prejudiced the jury and denied Diggs a fair trial. See Manning, 270 Kan. at 697. Diggs contends that the prosecutor's questioning tactics require a reversal of her convictions. We disagree. Given Diggs' responses and the circumstantial evidence against her, the cross-examination did not prejudice the jury against Diggs and deny her a fair trial.