· 3/3/2020

State v. Albert D.

Citations

  • 196 Conn. App. 155

Syllabus

Convicted, after a jury trial, of six counts of risk of injury to a child, three counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree, two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, and one count of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, the defendant appealed to this court. He claimed that he was entitled to a new trial on the basis of alleged prosecutorial improprieties during the state's rebuttal closing argument which resulted in a denial of his due process right to a fair trial pursuant to the six factor test set forth in State v. Williams (204 Conn. 523). Held: 1. The prosecutor's remarks on her own credibility and the credibility of one of the state's witnesses in rebuttal closing argument did not constitute improper vouching for the state's credibility: the state's response was reasonable in light of the defendant's sharp comments in closing argu- ment, and the prosecutor also stated, on numerous occasions throughout her rebuttal argument, that it was the jury's job to assess credibility; moreover, the prosecutor's comments were directly tied to the defense's interpretation of the evidence adduced at trial and did not improperly extend beyond the record. 2. The prosecutor's comments in rebuttal closing argument that the state's experts were not allowed, as a matter of law, to meet with the victims were improper and constituted an impropriety, as our law does not prohibit expert witnesses from meeting with children who are complain- ants of sexual assault: the prosecutor explicitly stated that the state's experts could not meet with the victims because doing so would usurp the jury's role in assessing credibility and, although the state correctly articulated that the experts could speak about the behavioral characteris- tics of child abuse victims only in general terms, such a principle is rooted in our courts' concern for improper vouching, and is not borne out of a rule precluding experts from meeting with complainants of sexual assault; moreover

Judges: Alvord; Moll; Bishop

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.