State v. A. M., 152 A.3d 49

Background

Defendant dated the victim's mother in 2003 and moved in with her and her three children later that year.
In Aug. 2009, the ~10-year-old victim disclosed that the defendant squeezed her buttocks; the mother removed him but allowed him back in ~two weeks later.
A family member notified the victim's father, who then interviewed the victim and filed a police report.
Police statements from the victim and the defendant, plus a forensic interview video, formed the evidentiary basis; the interview described multiple abuse incidents prior to August 2009.
Physical examination showed no physical evidence; experts acknowledged lack of physical evidence does not prove absence of abuse.
During trial, the video interview was admitted as substantive evidence; the defense cross-examined the victim extensively and challenged credibility.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor's comments about defendant's failure to testify violated the Fifth Amendment	A.M. claims violations of the fifth amendment and § 54-84.	The comments were improper prosecutorial misconduct that violated rights and required reversal.	Yes; direct references violated the Fifth Amendment and § 54-84.
Whether the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence and acquittal on one count.	Harmless error may result in reversal; the improper remarks affected the verdict.	No; the state failed to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the appropriate standard of review was Payne (Fifth Amendment) rather than Williams (due process)	Due process standard should apply to prosecutorial misconduct not infringing enumerated rights.	Fifth Amendment framework should apply because the claim implicates the right to remain silent.	Payne standard applies; the issue was handled as Fifth Amendment violation with harmlessness analysis.
Whether the trial court's curative instructions cured the misconduct	General instructions were insufficient given egregious misconduct.	General instructions should cure when appropriately directed and defense didn't object; context matters.	Insufficient cure; the misconduct was egregious and not cured by general instructions.
Impact of the prosecutor's remarks on central issues and strength of the state's case	Remarks vitiated credibility assessment where victim's testimony was central and lacked physical corroboration.	Evidence supported the victim's credibility and defendant's denials; remarks did not alter outcome.	Weighs in defendant's favor; the remarks were central and prejudicial to the verdict.

Key Cases Cited

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prosecutor not allowed to comment on defendant's silence)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (general due process standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (Conn. 2012) (distinct harms when rights enumerated; burden-shifting to state for harmlessness)
State v. Maguire, 310 Conn. 535 (Conn. 2013) (egregious misconduct; curative instructions insufficient; credibility focus)
State v. Angel T., 292 Conn. 262 (Conn. 2009) (repeated prosecutorial improprieties; inadequate curative instructions)
State v. Ruffin, 316 Conn. 20 (Conn. 2015) (analysis of fifth amendment prosecutorial impropriety; harmlessness)
State v. Ritrovato, 280 Conn. 36 (Conn. 2006) (credibility and lack of physical evidence; centrality of credibility)
State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364 (Conn. 2003) (sexual abuse case without conclusive physical evidence; credibility concerns)
State v. Ancona, 256 Conn. 214 (Conn. 2001) (jury instruction and credibility evaluation guidance)
State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414 (Conn. 2006) (defense failure to object and curative instruction considerations)