State v. Ramey

1

No. 108,597

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

JAMES CLINTON RAMEY,
Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.
Appellate review of prosecutorial misconduct allegations involves a two-step
process. First, we must decide whether the comments were outside the wide latitude a
prosecutor is allowed in discussing the evidence. If so, there was misconduct. Second, if
misconduct is found, we must determine whether the improper comments prejudiced the
jury and denied the defendant a fair trial.

2.
There are several factors to consider in analyzing the second step, namely whether
the misconduct (1) was gross and flagrant; (2) was motivated by prosecutorial ill will; or
(3) would have likely had little weight in the minds of the jurors because the evidence
was of such a direct and overwhelming nature. None of these three factors is individually
controlling.

3.
Additionally, any prosecutorial misconduct must meet the dual standard of both
constitutional harmlessness and statutory harmlessness to uphold the conviction.

2

4.
K.S.A. 60-421 provides that no evidence of a defendant's prior crimes "shall be
admissible for the sole purpose of impairing his or her credibility unless the witness has
first introduced evidence admissible solely for the purpose of supporting his or her
credibility."

5.
In this case, the statements complained of by defense counsel were questions made
by a prior defense counsel at the preliminary hearing. There was no valid reason to refer
to the previous questions.

6.
Courts caution prosecutors against characterizing testimony as a lie because such
categorical and conclusory opinions make the prosecutor an unsworn witness and invade
the province of the jury to determine credibility. In this case, a number of the prosecutor's
comments were well outside the wide latitude granted the prosecutor in arguing the case
to the jury and were obviously intentional and prejudicial.

7.
In this case, the prosecutor's comment that he found defense counsel's questioning
of whether the victim would lie about $14 to be insulting was an improper personal
comment on the prosecutor's part.

8.
A prosecutor should not make statements intended to inflame the passions or
prejudices of the jury or to divert the jury from its duty to decide the case based on the
evidence and the controlling law.

3

9.
In this case, the prosecutor's comments were outside the wide latitude granted the
prosecutor in arguing the case when he referenced the pain caused to the victim by
having to testify in the preliminary hearing.

10.
Cumulative trial errors, when considered collectively, may be so great as to
require reversal of the defendant's conviction. The test is whether the totality of
circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial.
No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the
evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.

11.
The presence of a person in a structure at any time during a burglary constitutes
aggravated burglary.

Appeal from Montgomery District Court; GARY R. HOUSE, judge. Opinion filed March 28, 2014.
Reversed and remanded.

Samuel Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

David Maslen, assistant county attorney, Larry Markle, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
attorney general, for appellee.

Before PIERRON, P.J., BUSER, J., and BUKATY, S.J.

PIERRON, J.: James Clinton Ramey appeals his convictions by a jury for
aggravated burglary, misdemeanor theft, and vehicle burglary. Before trial, he pled guilty
to criminal damage to property, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug
paraphernalia involving the same incident. Ramey's main issue on appeal is a plethora of
4

allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. He also argues the trial court erred in its
response to a jury question and failed to make the proper analysis for assessing Board of
Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS) attorney fees. Additionally, Ramey claims the journal
entry states the incorrect amount of attorney fees awarded by the trial court, that he was
entitled to a lesser included offense instruction on simple burglary, his prior convictions
were not proven to a jury, and cumulative error denied him a fair trial. We find there was
cumulative error which requires a reversal and remand for new trial.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Beverly Zimmerman is over 80 years old. She was asleep in her home on the night
in question and awoke to a big crash. When she came out of her bedroom, she saw the
silhouette of a man followed by a dog in her house. After turning on the kitchen light,
Zimmerman saw Ramey and told him he was in the wrong house. Zimmerman testified
Ramey said, "[N]o, I'm cold. The rest of them will be here pretty soon." Zimmerman
testified she knew she needed to get out of the house. She tried to call the police on her
cordless phone, but it did not work. She walked out onto the porch to see if it would
work, but it would not. Zimmerman took the phone back inside, hung it up, and then
walked to a neighbor's house to call the police. She said Ramey never threatened her and
just repeated that he was cold. Zimmerman had $14 in her wallet that was missing after
the incident. She testified she had not left her car door open that night and usually kept
her driver's license and bank cards in her purse.

Officer Jason Reddy of the Independence Police Department responded to
Zimmerman's home-invasion call. Officer Reddy approached Zimmerman's house, and
through the front window he saw Ramey going through the kitchen cabinets. As Officer
Reddy opened the front door, it squeaked and through the window he could see Ramey
run the opposite direction down a hallway. Officer Reddy chased Ramey and at gunpoint
ordered him to show his hands. Ramey immediately complied, and Officer Reddy
5

ordered Ramey to get on the floor. Ramey called his dog off. Officer Reddy took Ramey
into custody without incident.

During a search incident to the arrest, officers discovered a small bag of
methamphetamine in Ramey's wallet. During the search, Ramey also asked for a drug
test. Officer Reddy noticed the front door frame was broken and there was a ball cap on
the front walkway just before the stairs. Officer Reddy believed Ramey was under the
influence of methamphetamine based on his observations of Ramey's racing pulse rate
and profuse sweating. Officer Reddy testified that despite the drugs, Ramey knew what
was going on and had no problem understanding his Miranda rights. Ramey took a drug
test at the station, and the results indicated he had methamphetamine, amphetamines, and
marijuana in his blood.

Officer Reddy testified that in his investigation, he discovered Ramey had a
suspended driver's license. He found it odd that Ramey had a suspended driver's license
yet was found in possession of keys to a newer model vehicle. When officers later spoke
with Zimmerman, she said she was missing keys. The keys found on Ramey were to the
car in her garage.

On cross-examination at trial, defense counsel questioned Officer Reddy on the
unusual aspects of the incident as indicators of the lack of intent to commit a burglary,
namely the lights were on in the house, Ramey had a dog with him, he had no weapons,
he complied with the officer's requests, Ramey left his hat and shirt in the front yard, he
asked for a drug test, and Zimmerman was not threatened or harmed in any way when
confronted by Ramey.

Officer Jason Simmons testified to his assistance in getting Zimmerman back to
her house. He said the charger/base for Zimmerman's cordless phone was not plugged in.
When he placed the cord back into the base, the phone had worked properly. Zimmerman
6

told Officer Simmons that her phone worked fine before she went to sleep that night.
Officer Simmons said Zimmerman had called the police department and advised dispatch
she was missing some money. When Officer Simmons spoke with Zimmerman the next
morning, she said she was missing $20 and then later said it was probably $17 or $18.

Officer Jon Schenk followed up with Zimmerman the next morning as to several
missing items. When he helped Zimmerman search her house, they found Zimmerman's
driver's license, bank cards, pictures, and other cards on the floor and steps leading into
the attached garage. At this point, Officer Schenk noticed that the driver's side door to
Zimmerman's car was open. Zimmerman said she did not put her cards on the floor or
leave the car door open. Officer Schenk also found a pocket knife on the front porch of
the residence, along with a shirt in the front yard. Neither of those items were
Zimmerman's. On rebuttal, Officer Schenk testified he went back to Zimmerman's house
during the trial and took pictures looking from the kitchen down the hallway and to the
garage. Those photographs showed there is no window in the door from the garage to the
hallway and how difficult, if not impossible, it is to see the garage door from the kitchen
area.

Ramey took the stand in his own defense. He admitted to being a drug addict. He
was drinking beer and Crown Royal on the day in question. He said he also had taken
some pills for pain, but he did not know what they were. Ramey had his dog with him
during the incident. When Ramey passed Zimmerman's home, he began having problems
breathing and his chest was constricting. He pulled off his shirt, and his hat fell off his
head. He walked up to Zimmerman's front door and knocked to try and get someone to
answer. He said his life began flashing before his eyes. When no one answered the door,
he turned the knob and pushed really hard. He heard a loud popping sound as he pushed
through the door.

7

Ramey testified he knew he should not have been in the house, but he was afraid
for his life and just wanted to use a phone to call for help. When Ramey came into
contact with Zimmerman, he said he held his hands up, backed away, and tried to look
like he posed no threat to her. He asked Zimmerman for help, but she picked up the
phone and went outside. Ramey said he told Zimmerman to call for an ambulance.
Ramey said he still felt cold, but he needed something to drink. As he was looking around
the kitchen, Ramey said he saw a car in the garage and decided he could not wait for the
ambulance. He grabbed Zimmerman's wallet and car keys and took them to the front door
looking for Zimmerman. When he could not find her, he headed to the garage because he
needed to go to the hospital. The step down into the garage caught Ramey by surprise,
and he dropped Zimmerman's wallet causing the contents to spill onto the floor.

In the garage, Ramey opened the car door and then decided it was wrong to take
someone else's car. Feeling thirsty again, Ramey went back into the kitchen and started
looking through the kitchen cabinets. Ramey testified he heard a noise coming from the
back room and his first thought was it was a person who could help him get to the
hospital. When he checked the back room, no one was there, and the next thing he heard
was Officer Reddy telling him to put his hands in the air. Ramey testified he put
Zimmerman's car keys in his pocket and came out of the room with his hands in the air.
Ramey testified he asked for a drug test to find out what pills had caused his condition.

Ramey claimed he had no intent to steal anything in the house. He said he grabbed
Zimmerman's wallet and keys to take them to her so she could drive him to get help. He
denied taking any money out of Zimmerman's wallet.

In front of the jury, Ramey discussed the drug and criminal damage to property
charges he had pled guilty to before the start of the trial. The State had charged Ramey
with aggravated burglary, misdemeanor theft, misdemeanor criminal damage to property,
felony possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and vehicle
8

burglary. On the day of trial, Ramey pled guilty to the charges of criminal damage to
property, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The
jury convicted Ramey on the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Ramey to a
presumptive term of 130 months' incarceration on the aggravated burglary conviction and
then concurrent terms on the remaining convictions.

Ramey appeals.

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

Ramey first argues multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct denied him a
fair trial. We agree.

The State has made sure we understand that because Ramey pled guilty at trial to a
number of counts, any resolution on this case does not affect Ramey's convictions for
drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, and criminal damage.

Appellate review of prosecutorial misconduct allegations involves a two-step
process. First, we must decide whether the comments were outside the wide latitude a
prosecutor is allowed in discussing the evidence. If so, there was misconduct. Second, if
misconduct is found, we must determine whether the improper comments prejudiced the
jury and denied the defendant a fair trial. See State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 856, 281
P.3d 1112 (2012).

There are several factors to consider in analyzing this second step, namely whether
the misconduct (1) was gross and flagrant; (2) was motivated by prosecutorial ill will; or
(3) would have likely had little weight in the minds of the jurors because the evidence
was of such a direct and overwhelming nature. None of these three factors is individually
controlling. 294 Kan. at 857. Additionally, any prosecutorial misconduct must meet the
9

"dual standard" of both constitutional harmlessness and statutory harmlessness to uphold
the conviction. See State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 97, 91 P.3d 1204 (2004) (stating that
before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, appellate court must be able
to say harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18,
22, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 [1967], have been met).

Inadmissible Evidence

During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Ramey, "Why don't you tell the
jury what convictions you have that involve theft or dishonesty." Defense counsel
objected and requested a mistrial, claiming Ramey had not opened the door to that
evidence. The prosecutor disagreed. The trial judge held, "As far as the objection to the
question, I will sustain that. As to a mistrial, there's been no criminal history that's been
introduced into evidence and that's denied." On appeal, Ramey claims there was no
evidence in his direct testimony that even remotely attempted to bolster his own
credibility. Ramey argues the prosecutor did not point to evidence that showed Ramey
had opened the door. The court never asked the prosecutor to provide justification.

The prosecutor's comments were erroneous and outside of the wide latitude
allowed the prosecutor. K.S.A. 60-421 provides that no evidence of a defendant's prior
crimes "shall be admissible for the sole purpose of impairing his or her credibility unless
the witness has first introduced evidence admissible solely for the purpose of supporting
his or her credibility." On appeal, the State cites no examples in Ramey's testimony
where he opened the door to evidence of his prior crimes.

Of course, the preferred practice is for the prosecutor to first raise the issue of
K.S.A. 60-421 evidence to the trial judge, outside the presence of the jury, to avoid
possible prejudice to the defendant in the event the trial court refuses to allow the prior
crimes evidence.
10


Next, Ramey objected to the following questioning of Zimmerman by the
prosecutor:

"Q. . . . I found the section, Ms. Zimmerman, about the previous testimony, when Mr.
Ramey's attorney asked you questions. Okay. Do you recall him asking you: And you
indicated that you did not know Mr. Ramey before? . . .
"A. No.
"Q. And your answer was no, right?
"A. I have never seen him before.
"Q. Okay. The next question he asks was . . . : Had you ever been drinking with him at
all—
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection.
. . . .
"A. Not unless he comes to bingo.
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. Relevance to these proceedings. I wasn't
even the attorney then.
"[PROSECUTOR]: He is still bound by prior attorney's actions.
"THE COURT: Objection is overruled. The court will note that [defense counsel]
was not the attorney at that time for Mr. Ramey.
"[PROSECUTOR]: Okay. No further questions. Thank you."

Ramey argues this testimony was irrelevant and a tactless question by prior
defense counsel. He contends the prosecutor repeated this question for the sole purpose of
inflaming the jury against him. The State argues it is clear from the entire trial record that
the prosecutor asked these questions as part of the presentation of inconsistent statements
made by Ramey regarding the circumstances of the case and why he entered
Zimmerman's home. The State argues even if it was erroneous, the error was brief and the
topic was not revisited by the prosecutor.

This court has previously addressed claims of prosecutorial misconduct for
statements made before a judge at the preliminary hearing and at sentencing. See State v.
11

Roland, No. 101,879, 2010 WL 1078454, at *1-3 (Kan. App. 2010) (unpublished
opinion) (sentencing), rev. denied 292 Kan. 968 (2011); State v. Clelland, No. 93,001,
2005 WL 1805250, at *3-5 (Kan. App.) (unpublished opinion) (preliminary hearing), rev.
denied 280 Kan. 985 (2005), cert. denied 548 U.S. 912 (2006). In both Roland and
Clelland, the appellate court grappled with the question of whether to apply the
traditional prosecutorial misconduct standard that is normally applied in jury trials.
Ultimately, both panels applied the traditional standard. Roland, 2010 WL 1078454, at
*2; Clelland, 2005 WL 1805250, at *3. The problem in the case at bar is that the
statements complained of by defense counsel were questions made by prior defense
counsel at the preliminary hearing. Further, prior defense counsel's questioning of
Zimmerman on this topic continued for four additional questions into Zimmerman's
drinking habits. The prosecutor's question during trial was a repeat of one of the
questions asked by defense counsel at the preliminary hearing. There was no attempt by
defense counsel to question Zimmerman at trial about her drinking habits. There was no
valid reason to refer to the previous question.

Accusations of Lying

Next, Ramey contends the prosecutor improperly accused him of lying several
times throughout the trial either during cross-examination or closing argument.

During cross-examination, the following questioning occurred:

"Q. [PROSECUTOR:] You told us your version of why you went into the house that
night, right?"
"A. [RAMEY:] Yes.
"Q. You expect these people to believe that version, don't you?
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. That's argumentative.
"THE COURT: Overruled.
"A. Yeah. I would like them to believe that."
12

. . . .
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. That asks for a conclusion, how is he
supposed to know . . . .
"[PROSECUTOR]: He can answer the question, if he knows, then he can answer
the question rather than be instructed on how to answer by his attorney."

During closing argument, the prosecutor made the following comments:

"Attorneys don't just make stuff up out of thin air. They have to have reason[s] to
ask those questions. And he comes up with this bizarre version, that they were drinking
buddies. That's insulting. . . .
. . . .
". . . And he comes up with this version that you heard yesterday that his chest
hurt, he was breathing so hard. Oh, I'm in terrible shape, right? . . .
. . . .
"He is cognizant enough at marker 28:56 to tell the officer I asked her to call the
police. I asked her to call the police. He is already formulating some story, some defense. . . .
. . . .
". . . Why he comes up with this theory today over the last two days—let's face it,
it's his last-ditch hope. It's his last ditch hope.
. . . .
". . . He makes up this version about how he saw the car from the kitchen. That's
physically impossible. It's really hard to keep stuff straight when you make it up on the
fly."

Ramey argues that just like what occurred in State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 105
P.3d 1222 (2005), the prosecutor avoided the words lie and liar but still used the phrases
"makes up" and "comes up with" which can only be construed as indicating that Ramey
was lying. In Elnicki, a prosecutor's comments about the defendant's "'yarn,'" "'fairy
tale,'" "'fabrication,'" "'tall tale,'" and "'spin'" constituted improper commentary on the
defendant's credibility. See 279 Kan. at 57-68.

13

Ramey also argues the prosecutor's statement that defense counsel was instructing
Ramey how to testify insinuated that Ramey was lying and defense counsel was
suborning perjury.

The State responds that the prosecutor's questioning of Ramey's lack-of-intent
defense was within the wide latitude granted a prosecutor during cross-examination of a
witness.

However, the State concedes the prosecutor's comments that the bizarre story of
Ramey and Zimmerman being drinking buddies was insulting, that Ramey was already
formulating his defense when he asked Zimmerman to call the police, that the
intoxication defense was his last ditch hope, and that he made up the version of seeing the
car in the garage were all outside of the wide latitude granted the prosecutor. See State v.
Graham, 277 Kan. 121, 129, 83 P.3d 143 (2004) (similar comments about defendant
fabricating a story; court stated that rather than being commentaries on the evidence, the
comments were expressions of the prosecuting attorney's opinion the defendant was
fabricating her testimony); see also Gershman, Prosecutorial Misconduct § 11:27, p. 530
(2d ed. 2013) ("Courts caution prosecutors against characterizing testimony as a 'lie'
because such categorical and conclusory opinions make the prosecutor an unsworn
witness and invade the province of the jury to determine credibility."). We agree that the
prosecutor's comments were well outside the wide latitude granted the prosecutor in
arguing the case to the jury and were obviously intentional and prejudicial.

Vouching for Witness' Credibility

Next, Ramey argues the prosecutor improperly vouched for Zimmerman's
credibility during closing argument. We agree. The prosecutor stated:

14

"Because the only answer that they had is, is that this lady right here, made a mistake on
the amount of money that she reported to the police the first time. I mean, seriously, do
you think she lied to the police? Do you think she made this up? Do you think she
fabricated some story so she could get $14 back? Come on, that's insulting."

Ramey contends Zimmerman's credibility was not for the prosecutor to judge, but
rather for the jury to determine, and the prosecutor's statements were outside the latitude
of permissible conduct. The State responds that the crucial issue was not how much
money Ramey took but whether he took any at all. The State contends the comment was
not to bolster Zimmerman's credibility but a statement by the prosecutor in stating
Zimmerman was not wrong about missing her money.

In Elnicki, during the rebuttal portion of the State's closing argument the
prosecutor commented on the victim's credibility, telling the jury, "'[Y]ou know she was
telling you the truth.'" 279 Kan. at 64. Noting that this statement was in response to
defense counsel's argument that the victim was lying, the Elnicki court quoted State v.
McKinney, 272 Kan. 331, 347, 33 P.3d 234 (2001), and then stated: "While the
prosecutor's comments here about [the witness' credibility] are not necessarily prejudicial,
they are nevertheless error." 279 Kan. at 64. In the instant case, the prosecutor's comment
that he found defense counsel's questioning of whether Zimmerman would lie about $14
to be insulting was improper personal comment on the prosecutor's part. The prosecutor
was within his duty to comment that Zimmerman may have mistakenly reported the
amount of money to the police. However, the prosecutor improperly vouched for her
credibility with his personal opinion that the defense's theory was insulting.

Misstated Facts and Law

Next, Ramey argues the prosecutor misrepresented several facts during closing
argument by stating that Ramey admitted everything on all the charges except intent to
15

commit the crimes. Ramey points out that he claimed he never took any money from
Zimmerman's purse for the theft charge and he admitted to opening Zimmerman's car
door for the vehicular burglary but never entered the car.

On the first alleged misstated fact, the State indicates the complaint and the jury
instructions charge the theft of keys and/or United States currency. Consequently, Ramey
does not dispute that he was in possession of Zimmerman's car keys. Similarly, he does
not dispute that he opened Zimmerman's car door. It was then for the jury to determine
Ramey's intent based on the car door being open, the contents of Zimmerman's wallet on
the garage floor and steps, and Ramey's possession of her car keys. We do not find the
prosecutor misstated the facts of the case in light of the evidence and the stipulations of
guilt to the other charges.

Ramey also argues the prosecutor misstated the law in two instances during
closing argument. First, the prosecutor stated, "[Defense counsel] also argues that
[Zimmerman] left the house, therefore it can't be aggravated? The law is very clear. If
she's in there at any given time, it's an aggravated burglary." Ramey argues the timing of
when he decided to commit the theft was critical if the intent did not represent itself until
after Zimmerman left her house. If the intent and human presence do not match up,
Ramey argues he would have been guilty of burglary but not aggravated burglary. Thus,
he argues the prosecutor's argument led the jury to believe the opposite. Second, Ramey
claims the prosecutor improperly argued that since he pled to the general intent crimes,
he had the requisite intent to commit the specific intent crimes of burglary and theft. He
argues voluntary intoxication may negate the intent required to commit a theft or
burglary, but it does not negate the intent necessary to commit criminal damage to
property. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5205; State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598, 606, 257
P.3d 767 (2011). Ramey argues the prosecutor's misrepresentation was intentional in light
of the fact that Ramey did not initially request an instruction on voluntary intoxication
but only did so after the prosecutor argued it was required based on the evidence.
16


We do not find the prosecutor misstated the law on either the elements of
aggravated burglary or voluntary intoxication. In State v. Fondren, 11 Kan. App. 2d 309,
310, 721 P.2d 284, rev. denied 240 Kan. 805 (1986), the court stated that aggravated
burglary contains the requirement that the place of the burglary be occupied by a human
being at some point during the course of the burglary. The prosecutor's comment was not
a misstatement of the law as found in Fondren. Further, the jury instructions properly
instructed the jury on the elements of aggravated burglary and also included three fact-
specific voluntary intoxication instructions. Even if there was a slight misstatement of the
law, it did not amount to reversible error.

Inflammatory Comments

Next, Ramey argues the prosecutor made inflammatory comments throughout the
trial that denied him a fair trial. The prosecutor made several comments about Ramey
being a drug addict. During closing argument the prosecutor stated, "Let's start off with
what is the theme of the day? I am too stoned to be guilty. Is that it? Is that where we are
at?" Ramey argues these statements were intended to enrage the jurors rather than inform
them, and resulted in a conviction based on the outrage over his drug abuse.

We find no error in the prosecutor's repeated comments about Ramey being a drug
addict. Ramey's claim of being a drug addict and the use of a voluntary intoxication
defense made his drug addiction an appropriate subject for argument. The prosecutor may
have been relentless in discussing Ramey's drug problems, but it was certainly within the
wide latitude allowed the prosecutor in exploring the evidence.

During rebuttal argument, the prosecutor stated:

17

"During voir dire, [defense counsel] told you the tragic story of the jury trial he
had when the rape victim made up the story. You know, does it have anything to do with
this case or a jury selection question? No, it was designed to get your sympathy. To start
thinking about sympathy.
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. It was part of reminding them to follow
that . . . instruction. Not to hold against a person who didn't testify. At that point we didn't
know if he was going to testify or not."

Ramey argues the prosecutor inflamed the jury with comments made by defense counsel
that had no bearing on his guilt or innocence.

Clearly both the prosecutor and defense counsel tried to persuade the jury to
believe their respective side of the case. Both attorneys in this case argued passionately
for their clients. While defense counsel reprimands the prosecutor for arguing that
defense counsel was only trying to get sympathy from the jury, that is exactly what
defense counsel was doing, and it was even more egregious at other times. In his opening
statement, defense counsel stated, "Ms. Zimmerman's the one who was frightened in her
own home. I had that happen to me a long time ago and it's no day at the beach." Defense
counsel's cite of a personal example of when he was the victim of a crime had no
relevance to the case and was an obvious attempt to make the jury feel sympathetic
toward defense counsel.

During closing argument the prosecutor said, "Remember the preliminary hearing
that Ms. Zimmerman had to go through? Remember that testimony." Ramey argues it is
improper for the prosecutor to ask the jury to focus on the pain that testifying may have
caused the victim-witness. See Tosh, 278 Kan. at 90-93. We agree.

A prosecutor should not make statements intended to inflame the passions or
prejudices of the jury or to divert the jury from its duty to decide the case based on the
evidence and the controlling law. State v. Cravatt, 267 Kan. 314, 336, 979 P.2d 679
18

(1999). Similar to the "'rape her again" comments in Tosh, 278 Kan. at 90, the court in
State v. Villanueva, 274 Kan. 20, 33-36, 49 P.3d 481 (2002), considered the prosecutor's
closing argument, "'The funny thing is that's not the—that's not the only rape that took
place in this case. The second rape . . . took place when she had to come in here and had
her character attacked and her memory attacked.'" The court found the prosecutor's
comments were outside the scope of proper argument and improperly appealed to the
sympathies of the jury but did not demonstrate ill will when considered in light of the
trial record as a whole. 274 Kan. at 34-35. In the case at bar, we agree the prosecutor's
comments were outside the wide latitude granted the prosecutor in arguing the case when
he referenced the pain caused to the victim by having to testify in the preliminary
hearing.

Ramey's Desire for a Jury Trial

Next, Ramey argues the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to a jury
trial.

During the prosecutor's cross-examination of Ramey, the following occurred:

"A. [RAMEY:] Well, I was trying to explain my reason for going into the home. And
what my intent was, because it says you got to follow all the elements of the law. I
don't feel that I had criminal intent.
. . . .
"Q. [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. And you said just a minute ago, that you don't think you're
guilty because the State cannot prove all of the elements of the crimes; correct?
"A. Correct.
"Q. Okay. Did you do legal research and have a friend from the outside send you legal
research so you could formulate this defense?
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, judge. This is outside the scope of direct
exam.
19

"[PROSECUTOR]: It goes to his intent. It goes to the very nature of the
testimony that he has given and the testimony that he is wanting these people to believe
that he could not form the intent to burglarize this house, steal this property, or burglarize
the vehicle.
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: But it doesn't go to the intent of what happened
October the 10th. Again, he is talking about something that happened some time later
when he started to do some research.
"[PROSECUTOR]: I am laying the foundation for that Judge. I can prove it.
"THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objection now, but allow you to go
ahead and ask the questions that you are laying the foundation for.
. . . .
"Q. Okay. We've established that. You did your own legal research on the 10th, correct?
"A. Yeah. I wanted to know what the statute said.
"Q. Okay. And did you have this discussion with your girlfriend that if you could show
that the intent wasn't there, that you could beat the meth, the criminal damage, the
criminal trespass, et cetera?
"A. Possibly.
"Q. Okay.
"A. Because it goes along with the truth.
"Q. Pardon?
"A. Nevermind."

In closing argument, the prosecutor touched on the subject again with the
following comments:

"So he does some research. Has the girlfriend send him some research. How can
he get out of it? How can he beat this charge? How can he beat it? Voluntary
intoxication. That's the only possible defense left, right? That's the only possible defense
left. And he comes up with this version that you heard yesterday that his chest hurt, he
was breathing so hard. Oh, I'm in terrible shape, right? How did he get there? Crown
Royal, marijuana, meth, Valium, and dilaudid. Okay. Voluntary intoxication. So, I can't
be guilty because I was so stoned, right?"

20

Ramey argues the prosecutor used Ramey's desire to contest his guilt as evidence that he
was guilty.

The prosecutor did not expressly question Ramey's right to have a jury trial. See
State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 91, 91 P.3d 1204 (2004) (Tosh argued that it was highly
improper to tell the jurors that they should consider why he was exercising his
constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.). In State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318,
324, 202 P.3d 658 (2009), the prosecutor told the jurors in voir dire that "'any person
accused, whether they're guilty or not, has a right to have a jury trial, even guilty people.'"
The McReynolds court found the prosecutor's statement was not outside the bounds of
permissible statements. The court held: "Even if the reference to guilty people deserving
a fair trial was, in isolation, a technically inaccurate statement of the law, the entire
statement clearly placed the burden on the State to prove guilt and clearly articulated the
presumption of innocence." 288 Kan. at 324.

In the case at bar, the prosecutor's questions covered how Ramey came to the
understanding that voluntary intoxication would be a defense to the charges. Ramey
opened the door to this questioning. While explaining that he did not have any criminal
intent when he went in Zimmerman's house, he said, "And what my intent was, because it
says you got to follow all the elements of the law. I don't feel that I had criminal intent."
The prosecutor explored how Ramey came to that understanding by doing his own
research and having his girlfriend research the issue. We find the prosecutor's questions
were within the evidence presented by Ramey and a proper exploration of Ramey's
testimony that he had no intent to commit the crimes in this case.

Personal Opinion

Last, Ramey argues the prosecutor improperly gave his personal opinion regarding
Ramey's guilt. During closing argument, the prosecutor stated:
21


"Legally, Mr. Ramey and his attorney drafted this stipulation and put it into the record
that he intentionally committed criminal damage on October the 10th.
"So what you have to do to find him not guilty on the others is ignore the law,
ignore the facts, and ignore Mr. Ramey and his attorney.
"Ladies and gentleman, it's real simple. Go back there, sign the jury verdict form
guilty on all counts. Thank you."

The complained-of statement was not the prosecutor's personal opinion of the
case. Rather, he stated that only if you ignore the facts, law, and Ramey's stipulation to
the other offenses would you be able to find him not guilty. The prosecutor's comment
was a reverse way of saying that all the evidence proves Ramey is guilty. We do not find
the comment was outside the wide latitude allowed the prosecutor in arguing the case to
the jury during closing argument.


Did Prosecutorial Misconduct Produce Cumulative Error Requiring Reversal?

In support of the argument that the prosecutor's comments were gross and flagrant,
Ramey states the prosecutor was experienced and there are no recent developments in the
law that would justify the comments. He argues the prosecutor committed misconduct 23
times and, thus, the misconduct was not isolated by any stretch of the imagination. While
we do not count 23 instances of misconduct, we believe the prosecutor committed
misconduct in several instances: (1) the allegation of prior crimes of theft or dishonesty;
(2) the bizarre nature of Ramey's story and how he allegedly manufactured his defense;
(3) the vouching for Zimmerman's credibility; (4) the inappropriate question about
Zimmerman's drinking habits; and (5) the trial causing more pain to Zimmerman.

Ramey argues ill will is present again by the repeated nature of the misconduct
and specifically through the misconduct of the prosecutor improperly stating the law on
22

voluntary intoxication and his disregard for courtroom decorum by repeatedly stating he
could ask any question he wanted on cross-examination. Ramey maintains the repeated
misconduct severely affected his trial because he had presented sufficient evidence of a
voluntary intoxication defense and also had shown the evidence of the vehicular burglary
was extremely circumstantial because there was no evidence he ever got into the car.
Ramey argues the evidence was not overwhelming against him in this case and the State
intentionally benefitted from the prosecutor's misconduct.

The State argues virtually all of the comments of the prosecutor fell within the
wide latitude given to him in cross-examining witnesses or arguing the case to the jury.
The State contends that when some of the statements are placed in context, they were
simply comments on the evidence. The State contends the prosecutor aggressively
challenged Ramey's voluntary intoxication defense as any good prosecutor would do.
Additionally, the State indicates the trial court sustained many of defense counsel's
objections and the subject was not approached again. The State also argues the evidence
was overwhelming and the jury was saddled with the job of deciding Ramey's intent
when he broke down Zimmerman's door that evening. The State maintains the jury
simply did not buy Ramey's defense that he was only looking for a way to get medical
help as quickly as possible and Zimmerman's house provided the best option.

It is proper for a prosecutor to assert "reasonable inferences based on the evidence
and that when a case turns on which of two conflicting stories is true, certain testimony is
not believable." State v. Davis, 275 Kan. 107, 121, 61 P.3d 701 (2003).

Within the context of the multiple statements or actions by the prosecutor that
constituted misconduct, Ramey contends these errors cumulatively denied him a fair trial.

"'"'Cumulative trial errors, when considered collectively, may be so great as to
require reversal of the defendant's conviction. The test is whether the totality of
23

circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial.
No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the
evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.'"'" State v. Baker, 281 Kan. 997, 1017,
135 P.3d 1098 (2006).

We agree. As cited above, the prosecutor made many comments that were
obviously improper and prejudicial. While there was substantial evidence against Ramey,
the facts also made for a plausible voluntary intoxication defense. Because the improper
comments were so numerous and prejudicial, and because the State's case, although
strong, was not overwhelming, we find there was cumulative error which requires
reversal and remand for a new trial.

OTHER APPEAL ISSUES RAISED

Jury Question

Ramey argues the trial court misrepresented the law in responding to a question
submitted by the jury. We disagree.

After the jury has retired for deliberation, it may seek additional information on a
point of law from the trial court. K.S.A. 22-3420(3). Our Supreme Court has set forth the
appropriate standard of review in matters involving K.S.A. 22-3420(3):

"A trial court may not ignore a jury's request submitted pursuant to K.S.A. 22-
3420(3) but must respond in some meaningful manner or seek additional clarification or
limitation of the request. It is only when the trial court makes no attempt to provide a
meaningful response to an appropriate request or gives an erroneous response that the
mandatory requirement of K.S.A. 22-3420(3) is breached. Once the trial court attempts to
give an enlightening response to a jury's request or seeks additional clarification or
limitation of the request, then any issue as to the sufficiency or propriety of the response
is one of abuse of discretion by the trial court." State v. Boyd, 257 Kan. 82, Syl. ¶ 2, 891
P.2d 358 (1995).
24


In State v. Jones, 41 Kan. App. 2d 714, 722, 205 P.3d 779 (2009), rev. denied 290
Kan. 1099 (2010), the court indicated this passage from Boyd suggests a two-step
analysis to review a trial court's application of K.S.A. 22-3420(3): (1) A de novo review
to determine if the statute has been breached because the trial court failed to respond to
the jury's question or because the trial court provided an erroneous response to the
question; and (2) if the trial court has complied with these mandatory statutory
requirements, our court will employ an abuse of discretion standard in evaluating the
sufficiency or propriety of the response.

After the jury retired for deliberations, it submitted the following question about
Instruction No. 7, part 3: "Does it mean that before he broke down the door did he think
about doing so to steal or after he got in there and saw the purse he decided to steal $ or
keys?"

After discussion and agreement by counsel, the trial court responded to the jury's
question by referring the jury to the case of State v. Gutierrez, 285 Kan. 332, 172 P.3d 18
(2007), and specifically directing them to paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the syllabus:

"Aggravated burglary is defined in K.S.A. 21-3716 as 'knowingly and without
authority entering into or remaining within any building . . . in which there is a human
being, with intent to commit a felony . . . therein.' As used in that statute, the phrases
'entering into' and 'remaining within' refer to legally distinct factual situations. The
entering into element is satisfied when the evidence shows that a defendant crossed the
plane of a building's exterior wall. Remaining within refers to a defendant's presence in
the building's interior after any entering into, authorized or unauthorized, has been
accomplished."

"Both unauthorized entering into and unauthorized remaining within may be
present in a single burglary or aggravated burglary case. Neither is necessarily
instantaneous."
25


"To commit a burglary or aggravated burglary, a defendant's formation of intent
to commit a felony in a building must, at some point, coexist with an unauthorized
entering into the building or an unauthorized remaining within it. It is not necessary,
however, to prove remaining within burglary or aggravated burglary to show that the
intent to commit a felony was precisely contemporaneous with any withdrawal of a
defendant's authority to be inside the building."

On appeal, Ramey morphs the trial court's responsibility in addressing the jury's
question into a situation where the trial court must also inform the jury as to other
elements of the crime of aggravated burglary, namely that a human being must be present
within the building. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5807(b). Our reading of the jury's
question does not extend that far. The jury's question was limited to the intent to commit
the crime. When the trial court addressed the jury's question, it did not somehow negate
the jury's responsibility to still find the other elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. The jury was specifically instructed that its verdict "must be founded entirely upon
the evidence admitted and the law as given in these instructions." In responding to the
jury's question, the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the law regarding the intent
to commit the underlying felony for aggravated burglary and whether the intent to
commit the felony was in existence when the defendant entered the house or whether the
intent could surface later upon entry. See Gutierrez, 285 Kan. 332, Syl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 4. There
was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's answer to the jury's question.

Lesser Included Offense Instruction

Along the same lines as the previous issue, Ramey argues the trial court should
have given the jury a lesser included offense instruction for burglary. He did not request
an instruction for simple burglary at trial, but his request for the lesser included offense
instruction of attempted aggravated burglary was denied. The State does not address
Ramey's argument, and it appears by the argument in its appellate brief the State
26

mistakenly understood Ramey's claim to be that the trial court erred in failing to instruct
on the lesser included offense of attempted aggravated burglary.

When a defendant fails to request or does not object to the trial court's failure to
give a lesser included offense instruction, it is reversible error only if the failure to give
the instruction was clearly erroneous. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3414(3); State v. Harris,
293 Kan. 798, 806, 269 P.3d 820 (2012). Since Ramey did not ask for a burglary
instruction as a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary, we will use the clearly
erroneous standard of review when making our decision on this point.

To determine whether it was clearly erroneous for the trial court to fail to give an
instruction, we must decide whether an error occurred. If the trial court erred in failing to
give a particular instruction, we will then decide whether it was a reversible error. The
test for clear error requiring reversal is whether we are firmly convinced that the jury
would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred. The burden
of showing clear error remains with the defendant. See State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506,
515-16, 286 P.3d 195 (2012).

Ramey does not cite any relevant cases addressing similar facts. He correctly
points out that burglary is properly considered a lesser included offense of aggravated
burglary. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5109(b); K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5807(a), (b). Ramey
had the right to an instruction on simple burglary if the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to his theory of the case, would justify a jury verdict based upon that theory and
the evidence did not exclude a theory of guilt on the lesser offense. See K.S.A. 2013
Supp. 22-3414(3); State v. Williams, 268 Kan. 1, 15, 988 P.2d 722 (1999). To warrant an
instruction on simple burglary, there had to be evidence that no one was in the home
during the burglary. Ramey argues a reasonable jury could have found him guilty of
simple burglary. He contends that if he remained in Zimmerman's house with the intent to
commit a theft, he needed to form that intent while Zimmerman was still in the house. He
27

cites State v. Fondren, 11 Kan. App. 2d 309, 310, 721 P.2d 284, rev. denied 240 Kan.
805 (1986), where the court stated that aggravated burglary contains the requirement that
the place of the burglary be occupied by a human being at some point during the course
of the burglary.

We have consistently held that the presence of a person in a structure at any time
during a burglary constitutes aggravated burglary. See State v. Romero, 31 Kan. App. 2d
609, 610-12, 69 P.3d 205 (2003); Fondren, 11 Kan. App. 2d at 310-12; State v. Reed, 8
Kan. App. 2d 615, 616-19, 663 P.2d 680, rev. denied 234 Kan. 1077 (1983).

Ramey's construction of the aggravated burglary statute seems to frustrate the
purpose of the distinction between simple burglary and aggravated burglary, which is to
recognize as a more serious crime those burglaries that can result in a dangerous and
unexpected confrontation between the burglar and an occupant. See Fondren, 11 Kan.
App. 2d at 310-12. In Reed, 8 Kan. App. 2d at 616-17, the court observed:

"The purpose behind the aggravated burglary statute is to describe a more serious offense
than simple burglary when there is the possibility of contact between the victim and the
burglar and the accompanying potential for a crime against the person to occur. This
danger is just as great regardless of when during the burglary the victim comes to be in
the building. . . . [T]he severity of the crime depends upon the mere presence or absence
of any human being in the same structure."

Consequently, aggravated burglary does not require proof that the defendant knew there
was a person present in the building at the time it was burgled. The mere presence of a
person during the crime is sufficient. See State v. Watson, 256 Kan. 396, 400-01, 885
P.2d 1226 (1994); Fondren, 11 Kan. App. 2d at 311.

Ramey was not alone in the house when he pushed in the front door. His theory of
defense was not that he did not have the requisite intent when he pushed in the door or
28

that he developed that intent while inside. Rather, Ramey's theory of defense throughout
the entire trial was an innocent intent based on his voluntarily drug-induced intoxication
and a lack of general indicators of a burglary. If we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to Ramey's theory of the case, we cannot hold that a jury could justify a verdict
of simple burglary based upon that theory. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3414(3). A verdict
based on Ramey's theory of defense would be a complete acquittal, not a lesser included
offense. It was not clearly erroneous for the trial court to not instruct the jury on simple
burglary as a lesser included offense.

Apprendi

Ramey also contends the trial court's use of his prior convictions to enhance his
sentence without them being proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt violated his
rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as
interpreted by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d
435 (2000). Our Supreme Court has previously rejected this claim and continues to do so.
State v. Adams, 294 Kan. 171, 185, 273 P.3d 718 (2012) (reaffirming State v. Ivory, 273
Kan. 44, 46-48, 41 P.3d 781 [2002]). We are duty bound to follow Ivory.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.