Volume 249 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Sufficiency of Evidence — Appellate Review.</italic> When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review on appeal is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR — <italic>Sufficiency of Evidence in Criminal Case</italic> <italic>— Appellate Review.</italic> When a verdict is challenged for insufficiency of evidence or as being contrary to the evidence, it is not the function of this court to weigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of the witnesses. 3. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Jury Instructions — PIK Instructions</italic> <italic>Recommended but Not Mandatory.</italic> The use of PIK instructions is not mandatory, but is strongly recommended. They should be the starting point in the preparation of any set of jury instructions. Absent a need under the particular facts of a given case to modify a PIK instruction or add an instruction not included in PIK, PIK instructions and recommendations should be followed. 4. SAME — <italic>Reasonable Doubt Instruction.</italic> An instruction on reasonable doubt that fails to define reasonable doubt is neither erroneous nor an incorrect statement of the law. The concept of "reasonable doubt" does not need to be defined because the words themselves describe the meaning. 5. SAME — <italic>Prior Crimes Evidence — Admissibility.</italic> The admission of evidence of prior crimes to establish a relationship between parties is appropriate. When evidence of prior crimes is admitted for that purpose, the admission is independent of K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-455</cross_reference>. 6. SAME — <italic>Res Gestae — Admissibility of Evidence Before,</italic> <italic>During, and After Principal Event.</italic> The law allows the admission of evidence as part of the res gestae of acts made before, during, or after the principal event. 7. SAME — <italic>Closing Argument — Prosecutorial Misconduct —</italic> <italic>Prejudicial Effect — Basis for Reversal of Conviction.</italic> Improper remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in closing summation to the jury will not provide a basis for reversal where the jury has been instructed to disregard the same, unless the remarks were so prejudicial as to be incurable. 8. APPEAL AND ERROR — <italic>Prosecutorial Misconduct — Reversal of</italic> <italic>Conviction — Appellate Review.</italic> In deciding whether prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal, an appellate court determines whether there was little or no likelihood the error changed the result of the trial.<page_number>Page 489</page_number>