State v. Ampero, 72 A.3d 435

Background

Defendant Alberto Ampero was convicted by a jury of second‑degree kidnapping and interfering with an officer after detaining his ex‑girlfriend Jasmin Vazquez and her three children in his apartment, threatening her with a knife, and preventing her from leaving. He was acquitted on first‑degree kidnapping and second‑degree strangulation.
Incident: on Aug. 27, 2009 defendant forced the victim and children into his apartment, threatened her with a knife, bit her, choked her, and later released them after a neighbor intervened; police pursued and arrested defendant after a foot chase, during which he resisted arrest and suffered a broken ankle.
At trial the state’s witnesses (victim, victim’s mother, officers) testified about prior incidents between defendant and victim (April 2009: broken phones, slapping, a follow/facsimile gun incident, and prior arrest/incarceration).
Defense counsel did not object to admission of prior‑bad‑acts or incarceration testimony; instead he cross‑examined witnesses about those incidents and relied on them in closing to undermine the kidnapping charge.
On appeal defendant argued: (1) admission of prior bad acts was reversible error; (2) testimony about prior incarceration was reversible error; and (3) prosecutorial impropriety in eliciting and arguing that evidence denied him a fair trial. The trial court’s general jury instructions (including that counsel’s arguments are not evidence) were given. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Prosecutor/State Argument	Ampero (Defendant) Argument	Held
Admission of prior bad acts evidence	Admission was proper or any error was harmless; moreover defense counsel didn’t object and used the evidence in cross and closing.	Admission of prior misconduct testimony deprived him of a fair trial and was reversible error.	Rejected — evidentiary claim is not of constitutional magnitude under Golding; no plain error where defense strategically used evidence.
Admission of testimony about prior incarceration/DOC photo	Same as above: not reversible; defense counsel failed to object and used testimony strategically.	Testimony implying prior incarceration was prejudicial and reversible.	Rejected — purely evidentiary, no Golding relief, no plain error.
Prosecutorial impropriety for eliciting/arguing prior misconduct	No impropriety: state may offer such evidence after notice, and failure to seek limiting instruction not reversible where defense didn’t object and used evidence.	Prosecutor’s introduction and reliance on prior misconduct deprived him of due process.	Rejected — no flagrant misconduct; review of whole trial shows no due process violation; defense conduct and lack of objection weigh against reversal.
Plain error / Golding reviewability	Many claims are evidentiary and not constitutional; plain error reserved for extraordinary cases.	Claims should be reviewed despite lack of objection because of prejudice.	Rejected — evidentiary nature fails second Golding prong; plain error not met because error not obvious and no manifest injustice.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (establishes four‑part test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
Crawford v. Comm’r of Corr., 294 Conn. 165 (plain error doctrine is reserved and invoked sparingly)
State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414 (appellate review of prosecutorial impropriety not for tactical sandbagging; importance of timely objection)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (factors for evaluating prosecutorial impropriety and due process impact)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (factors to consider when assessing prosecutorial misconduct)