Court Opinion

ID: 9758570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:36:29.844767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:53.123855
License: Public Domain

Malone, J.,
concurring: I respectfully concur in the result, but I would find no prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument. I agree with the majority that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by referring to some widely known shooting incidents only to make the point that the State did not need to prove motive. As for the prosecutor’s comments on the State’s burden of proof, the comments are set forth in their entirety in the majority opinion as follows:
“[The Prosecutor:] The Court instructed you in Instruction No. 13 on — on reasonable doubt, and I want to discuss that with you.
“I want to comment briefly on the reasonable doubt statute. The State filed this case. The State has to prove the case. You know, that’s the law, and that’s fair. We have to prove the case such that there is no reasonable doubt as to the truth of the elements that we’ve alleged.
“Now, the Court has given you the instructions on the elements of each charge, and we’ll get into those later on. But that’s the burden the State has.
“A lot of people have a misconception that we have to prove it — a case beyond any and all doubt. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is not our burden, ladies and gentlemen. The fact is and the law is, you can have a doubt as to the claim or a claim made by the State of Kansas. But if that doubt is not reasonable, then, based upon the evidence, you must find the defendant guilty.
“And there’s no percentage on this. It’s not set forth in the law. It’s not saying, well, you got to reach 51 percent, or you got to reach this percent or that percent. There’s no such thing.
“And, basically, what it comes down to is, if you, in your hearts and in your minds, after hearing all the evidence and taking all the evidence into consideration, you feel in your hearts and in your minds that the State has proven each and eveiy element of the crime charged, you have reached that reasonable doubt standard and you must find the defendant guilty.
*937“And we feel comfortable, based upon the evidence that you heard from the— from the witness stand and the physical evidence that was introduced into evidence that you’re going to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.”
The prosecutor began his comments by referring the jury to Instruction 13 which was substantially the same as the approved PIK instruction on burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and reasonable doubt. See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02. Then the prosecutor informed the jury that the State had the burden “to prove the case such that there is no reasonable doubt as to the truth of the elements that we’ve alleged.” In the same sentence in which the prosecutor briefly referred to the hearts and minds of the jurors, the prosecutor indicated that the State must prove “each and every element of the crime charged.” Finally, and most importantly, the prosecutor reminded the jury that the verdict must be “based upon the evidence that you heard . . . from the witness stand and the physical evidence.” •
In my experience, an appellate court finding of prosecutorial misconduct is the kind of pronouncement that most prosecutors and the general public view quite seriously. In this instance, upon reviewing the prosecutor’s comments in their entirety, I find no misconduct committed by the prosecutor in the closing argument.