State v. Stimec, 298 P.3d 354

Stimec appeals his jury conviction on two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child.
He argues prosecutorial misconduct occurred in rebuttal closing by urging a poll of jurors about others' conduct.
He also raises other prosecutorial misconduct claims and challenges his sentence under Jessica’s Law.
The court reverses and remands for a new trial due to the rebuttal misconduct alone, declining to address other claims.
Trial evidence showed Stimec allegedly rubbed lotion on his 6-year-old son and discussed it during interviews; defense argued lotion use is not criminal.
The prosecutor’s rebuttal explicitly framed the conduct as a crime and invited jurors to poll themselves, which the court found prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the rebuttal comments were improper and prejudicial	Stimec argues the remarks inflamed passions and suggested jurors engaged in undisclosed conduct.	Stimec contends the comments were provoked by defense arguments and supported by evidence.	Yes; the statements were highly improper and prejudicial, denying a fair trial.

State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55 (2011) (two-step analysis for prosecutorial misconduct and plain error)
State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906 (2012) (three-factor prejudice test for misconduct in closing)
State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (2011) (harmlessness standards in prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Smith, 296 Kan. 111 (2012) (substantial rights and harmless error framework)
State v. Baker, 281 Kan. 997 (2006) (prosecutor not to inflame passions or divert from evidence)
State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850 (2012) (defense provocation does not justify prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Manning, 270 Kan. 674 (2001) (prosecutorial misconduct cannot be excused by defense arguments)
State v. King, 288 Kan. 333 (2009) (prosecutorial misconduct standards and safeguards)
State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 (2011) (prosecutor misconduct by commenting on facts outside evidence)
State v. Villanueva, 274 Kan. 20 (2002) (commentary on victim credibility as misconduct)
State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 (2002) (improper appeals to victim's mother’s feelings)