State v. McBride, 112277

Background

Defendant Osi Bisa McBride was tried twice on charges including rape, aggravated kidnapping, and criminal sodomy arising from an incident in November 2011; the first trial ended in a mistrial and the second resulted in conviction only for the lesser included offense of kidnapping (K.S.A. 21-5408(a)(3)).
The kidnapping conviction rested primarily on the victim C.C.'s testimony that McBride drove her to his mother’s house, prevented her from leaving, physically controlled her inside the house, and later raped and sodomized her; little corroborating physical evidence supported the force/threat element.
During rebuttal closing, the prosecutor told jurors that the victim “deserves a certain presumption as well,” effectively asserting a credibility presumption for the witness—an assertion the Court of Appeals found misstated the law and constituted prosecutorial error.
The Court of Appeals nevertheless concluded the error was harmless and affirmed the conviction, also rejecting an Apprendi-based sentencing claim; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review only on the prosecutorial error/harmlessness question.
The Kansas Supreme Court held the prosecutor’s comment was reversible prosecutorial error under the Chapman harmless-error standard because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the kidnapping verdict, reversed the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McBride)	Held
Prosecutorial closing comment bolstering victim's credibility	Comment was brief/vague and did not affect the verdict; overwhelming evidence supports conviction	Comment misstated law by suggesting witness deserves a presumption akin to defendant's presumption of innocence and thus prejudiced the jury	Error found; not harmless under Chapman; conviction reversed
Harmlessness of the prosecutorial error (Chapman standard)	State: beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not contribute to verdict because evidence was overwhelming and additional trial exhibits/witnesses strengthened the case	McBride: case hinged on C.C.'s uncorroborated testimony about force/threat, so the improper credibility boost could have affected outcome	State failed to meet Chapman burden; reasonable possibility error contributed to verdict -> reversal
Admission of additional evidence at second trial	State: additional exhibits and witnesses supported jury's finding	McBride: additional items did not corroborate the critical element (force/threat/deception)	Court: additional evidence did not sufficiently corroborate force/threat; did not cure prejudice
Apprendi challenge at sentencing	State/Ct of Appeals: prior convictions may be used at sentencing without jury factfinding (relying on Kansas precedent)	McBride: reliance on criminal history at sentencing implicated Apprendi protections	Court of Appeals rejected Apprendi claim; Supreme Court did not review this issue on grant of review

Key Cases Cited

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (establishes constitutional harmless-error test — State must show beyond a reasonable doubt error did not contribute to verdict)
State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 (Kan. 2016) (adopts "prosecutorial error" framework and directs Chapman analysis for prejudice)
State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 (Kan. 2004) (previous two-step prosecutorial-misconduct framework; discussed and superseded in part by Sherman)
State v. Akins, 298 Kan. 592 (Kan. 2014) (reversed where credibility was paramount and prosecutor's comments were reversible)
State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501 (Kan. 2000) (reversal where prosecutor's argument likely led jurors to believe defendant was lying and evidence was not overwhelming)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (Kan. 2002) (Kansas precedent on use of prior convictions in sentencing; cited in Court of Appeals' Apprendi analysis)
State v. Pribble, 304 Kan. 824 (Kan. 2016) (same standard of review applies to prosecutorial error in closing argument regardless of contemporaneous objection)