State v. Simmons, 254 P.3d 94

Simmons was convicted by jury of two counts of rape and one count of misdemeanor theft; aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sodomy acquittals, and one rape count unresolved by jury.
Prosecutorial misconduct claims were raised on five theories, with the Court of Appeals affirming and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review on those claims only.
During voir dire, the prosecutor discussed Stockholm Syndrome with veniremembers and tied it to how witnesses and victims may react, promising to view certain evidence in light of the syndrome.
The State did not present trial evidence of Stockholm Syndrome; the dialogue occurred in voir dire and referenced cases (Hearst, Hornbeck) as examples.
Closing argument included a comment about what A.H. would be thinking in future showers, which the court deemed improper and not cured by admonitions.
The court ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial on the prosecutorial misconduct claims, while other misconduct issues were discussed for guidance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stockholm Syndrome voir dire misconduct	Simmons; voir dire used to introduce an improper theory.	Simmons; prosecutor improperly invited jury to rely on non-evidentiary syndrome.	Reversible prosecutorial misconduct; remand for new trial.
Closing showering remark	Simmons; remark appealed to sympathy and prejudiced fair trial.	State; admonition cured prejudice; not reversible.	Reversible; curing admonition insufficient; remand.
Initial voir dire remark asserting rape allegations as fact	Simmons; improper presumption of guilt implied before trial.	State; jury understands charges and burden; objection sustained.	Not reversible based on record; remand cautioned to avoid repetition.
Detective Austin testimony elicitation	Simmons; prosecutor elicited intent-based testimony suggesting probable cause.	State; questioning was permissible to elicit chronology.	Not reversible; should be avoided on remand.
Closing argument about defense witness Debusk	Simmons; comment improperly framed witness as a smear attempt against victim.	State; comment reasonable inference to challenge Debusk's relevance.	Not reversible; guidance given for remand.

State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (2011) (two-step prosecutorial misconduct analysis; factors for reversal)
State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 (2004) (three factors for gauging prejudice; standard for reversal)
State v. Pink, 236 Kan. 715 (1985) (bad faith and irreparable prejudice required for reversal)
State v. Campbell, 268 Kan. 529 (2000) (opening statements referencing unproved matters; prejudice inquiry)
State v. Lumbrera, 252 Kan. 54 (1992) (Munchausen-related discussion not per se reversible)
State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624 (2004) (curing prejudice by admonition; weighing harm)
State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927 (2008) (prejudice analysis in prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Adams, 292 Kan. 60 (2011) (prosecutorial sympathy for victim as improper argument)
State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318 (2009) (voir dire misconduct and burden of proof considerations)
State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 686 (2010) (voir dire to assess impartiality; independent evaluation)
State v. Huerta-Alvarez, 291 Kan. 247 (2010) (prosecutor's improper facts not in evidence; risk of unsworn testimony)
State v. Jordan, 250 Kan. 180 (1992) (curing prejudice by admonition; limits on improper remarks)