prosecutor committed reversible error in Kansas

2024To evaluate claims of prosecutorial error, appellate courts use a two-step process: • First, we determine whether an error occurred—whether the prosecutor's statements, viewed in context, fall outside "the wide latitude afforded prosecutors 'to conduct the State's case in a manner that does not offend the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.'" State v. Coleman, 318 Kan. 296 , 302, 543 P.3d 61 (2024). • Second, if the prosecutor erred, we determine whether that error prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial.

2024To evaluate claims of prosecutorial error, appellate courts use a two-step process: • First, we determine whether an error occurred—whether the prosecutor's statements, viewed in context, fall outside "the wide latitude afforded prosecutors 'to conduct the State's case in a manner that does not offend the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.'" State v. Coleman, 318 Kan. 296 , 302, 543 P.3d 61 (2024). • Second, if the prosecutor erred, we determine whether that error prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial.

2024State v. Shields, 315 Kan. 814 , 835, 511 P.3d 931 (2022).

2024State v. Shields, 315 Kan. 814 , 835, 511 P.3d 931 (2022).

2024Decaire relies on our Supreme Court's holding in State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 65 , 260 P.3d 86 (2011), to support his argument that the prosecutor committed reversible error.

2024Decaire relies on our Supreme Court's holding in State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 65 , 260 P.3d 86 (2011), to support his argument that the prosecutor committed reversible error.

2024Preservation and Standard of Review Though Z.M. did not object during trial to the statements he now asserts are error, this issue is properly preserved for review. "[W]e will review a prosecutor's comments made during voir dire, opening statement, or closing argument on the basis of prosecutorial error even without a timely objection, 'although the presence or absence of an objection may figure into our analysis of the alleged misconduct.'" State v. Sean, 306 Kan. 963 , 974, 399 P.3d 168 (2017).

2024Preservation and Standard of Review Though Z.M. did not object during trial to the statements he now asserts are error, this issue is properly preserved for review. "[W]e will review a prosecutor's comments made during voir dire, opening statement, or closing argument on the basis of prosecutorial error even without a timely objection, 'although the presence or absence of an objection may figure into our analysis of the alleged misconduct.'" State v. Sean, 306 Kan. 963 , 974, 399 P.3d 168 (2017).

2021Ellis asserts that despite his trial counsel challenging Varnell's testimony during cross-examination, the prosecutor's opening statement "primed the jury to believe Mr. Ellis made an incriminating statement." "'Opening statements are given to assist the jury in understanding what each side expects the evidence will prove and to frame the questions the jury will have to decide'; a prosecutor errs when straying outside the evidence they expect to be able to prove." State v. Timley, 311 Kan 944, 950, 469 P.3d 54 (2020) (quoting State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 609 , 331 P.3d 815 [2014]).

2021Ellis asserts that despite his trial counsel challenging Varnell's testimony during cross-examination, the prosecutor's opening statement "primed the jury to believe Mr. Ellis made an incriminating statement." "'Opening statements are given to assist the jury in understanding what each side expects the evidence will prove and to frame the questions the jury will have to decide'; a prosecutor errs when straying outside the evidence they expect to be able to prove." State v. Timley, 311 Kan 944, 950, 469 P.3d 54 (2020) (quoting State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 609 , 331 P.3d 815 [2014]).

2021Ellis asserts that despite his trial counsel challenging Varnell's testimony during cross-examination, the prosecutor's opening statement "primed the jury to believe Mr. Ellis made an incriminating statement." "'Opening statements are given to assist the jury in understanding what each side expects the evidence will prove and to frame the questions the jury will have to decide'; a prosecutor errs when straying outside the evidence they expect to be able to prove." State v. Timley, 311 Kan 944, 950, 469 P.3d 54 (2020) (quoting State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 609 , 331 P.3d 815 [2014]).

2020Kansas courts repeatedly have held "that in closing argument, a prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence but may not comment upon facts outside the evidence." State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841, 848 , 257 P.3d 272 (2011); see also State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 947 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) ("A prosecutor 'is given wide latitude in language and in manner [of] presentation of closing argument as long as the argument is consistent with the evidence.'").

2020Kansas courts repeatedly have held "that in closing argument, a prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence but may not comment upon facts outside the evidence." State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841, 848 , 257 P.3d 272 (2011); see also State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 947 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) ("A prosecutor 'is given wide latitude in language and in manner [of] presentation of closing argument as long as the argument is consistent with the evidence.'").

2018At the time the parties submitted their briefs to the Court of Appeals and Thomas filed her petition for review with this court, we analyzed "prosecutorial misconduct" claims using the framework described in State v. Tosh , 278 Kan. 83 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004).

2018At the time the parties submitted their briefs to the Court of Appeals and Thomas filed her petition for review with this court, we analyzed "prosecutorial misconduct" claims using the framework described in State v. Tosh , 278 Kan. 83 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004).

2002In Pabst , the court held the prosecutor committed reversible error when he argued to the jury that the defendant lied. 268 Kan. at 506 .

2001Our standard of review for prosecutorial misconduct was recently stated in State v. Deiterman, 271 Kan. 975, 987 , 29 P.3d 411 (2001), in this manner: “The analysis of the effect of a prosecutor s alleged improper remarks in closing argument is a two-step process.

2001Our standard of review for prosecutorial misconduct was recently stated in State v. Deiterman, 271 Kan. 975, 987 , 29 P.3d 411 (2001), in this manner: “The analysis of the effect of a prosecutor s alleged improper remarks in closing argument is a two-step process.