State v. Naputi, 260 P.3d 86

Naputi was convicted on seven counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child in two consolidated cases.
The district court granted a downward departure but ordered lifetime electronic monitoring and lifetime postrelease supervision as part of the sentence.
Naputi argued prosecutorial misconduct, error on jury instruction regarding nullification, and improper lifetime monitoring; he challenged postrelease supervision as cruel and unusual punishment.
Prosecutor allegedly misstated the law on specific intent and improperly commented on defense witnesses and corroboration among victims.
The State urged that the closing remarks were within permissible limits and that any misstatements were not reversible plain error; the electronic monitoring issue followed a recent Kansas Supreme Court decision in Jolly.
The court preserved review, affirmed most convictions, but vacated the lifetime electronic monitoring portion and remanded to remove that condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Naputi argues two misstatements of law and a propensity implication.	State contends remarks were within closing and not grossly misstateful overall.	No reversible error; statements not gross and flagrant; harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
Jury instruction on nullification	Naputi requested modification to reflect jury nullification power.	McClanahan prohibits nullification instruction; proper standard already given.	District court did not err; no right to jury nullification instruction.
Lifetime electronic monitoring	Electronic monitoring improperly imposed; part of departure sentence.	No error; within discretionary departure authority.	Vacate lifetime electronic monitoring; remand to remove it per Jolly.
Lifetime postrelease supervision cruel and unusual punishment	Postrelease supervision challenged as cruel and unusual.	Record properly developed; issue preserved.	Not properly preserved for appeal; declined to address.

State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (clarified harmless-error standards in prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Baker, 287 Kan. 345 (2008) (misstatements of law may be harmless where correct law is otherwise given)
State v. Verge, 272 Kan. 501 (2001) (addressed response to defense’s failure to call witnesses without improper burden-shifting)
State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 (2004) (prosecutor responses to defense inferences about witness availability)
State v. McClanahan, 212 Kan. 208 (1973) (rejected jury nullification instructions as improper)
State v. Jolly, 291 Kan. 842 (2011) (parole board sole authority to impose electronic monitoring; vacated by remand)