State v. Sullivan
Citations
- 351 Conn. 798
Syllabus
The defendant appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed his conviction of unlawful restraint in the second degree, sexual assault in the fourth degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the third degree, and sexual assault in the third degree. During rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor listed four defenses that, according to her, defendants ''usually'' raise in criminal cases, and she noted two additional defenses that she claimed defendants ''generally'' raise in sexual assault cases, which she referred to as the ''nuts and sluts'' defenses. The prosecutor then asked the jury, ''do you think [the victim] is nuts? Because she'd have to be nuts to make all of this up.'' The defendant claimed that the Appellate Court had incorrectly determined that the prosecutor's remarks during rebuttal were not improper and that he was entitled to a new trial. Held: Although the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the prosecutor's statements during rebuttal closing argument were not improper, the impro- prieties nevertheless did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and, accord- ingly, this court affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment. The prosecutor's use of the phrase ''nuts and sluts'' improperly appealed to the jurors' emotions and diverted their attention from their duty to decide the case solely on the evidence, as it was a highly inflammatory and crass phrase that the jurors would likely find offensive, it suggested that the jury's legal duty required passing moral judgment on the victim, and it strayed from the evidence presented at trial, which concerned whether the victim had a motive to lie and not whether the victim was insane or promiscuous. The prosecutor did not shift the burden of proof to the defense by listing the defenses that can be asserted in criminal cases, including those involving allegations of sexual assault. 351 Conn. 798 MAY, 2025 799 State v. Sullivan However, by sugges
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court· 1970-05-18· cited 11,712×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-07-28· cited 498×
- State v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-06-03· cited 248×
- State v. StevensonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-06-15· cited 228×
- United States v. Eric Parker, Gary Phillips, and Keith MoonSecond Circuit· 1990-05-07· cited 225×
- State v. SinghSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-03-26· cited 212×
- State v. CoutureSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-10-02· cited 199×
- Campfield v. Stickman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at GreeneSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 186×
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-10-28· cited 147×
- United States v. Miguel Bautista and Tony Rodriguez Perez, Luis R. Minier-ContrerasSecond Circuit· 1994-05-06· cited 140×
- United States v. Tyrez ClarkSixth Circuit· 1993-01-06· cited 122×
- State v. GoldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-05-15· cited 118×
- Parker v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1990-10-01· cited 113×
- State v. LusterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-08-15· cited 92×
- State v. RitrovatoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-09-26· cited 71×
- State v. ANGEL T.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-06-30· cited 67×
- State v. OutingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-31· cited 60×
- State v. MilardoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-01-12· cited 45×
- State Of Washington, V Alfred James Thierry Jr.Court of Appeals of Washington· 2015-10-20· cited 39×
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.