State v. Boutilier, 144 Conn. App. 867

In January 2008 Matthew Boutilier shot Becky Ramos (fatally) and Yajaira Aponte (seriously) in the kitchen of his Waterford Street home; he later surrendered after hiding for two weeks.
At retrial for Ramos’ death Boutilier conceded the shootings but claimed self‑defense (he believed Ramos was "drag crazed").
The jury convicted him of first‑degree manslaughter with a firearm; he received a 40‑year concurrent sentence.
During trial the defense sought three times to have the jury view the kitchen/crime scene; the court denied the requests, citing existing diagrams, photos, a videotape, and alternative courtroom demonstrations.
A prosecution witness (jailhouse informant Fernando Bosque) testified that Boutilier admitted shooting Ramos; during direct examination Bosque briefly answered that he had testified in another case, prompting a defense objection and a motion for mistrial.
The court gave a cautionary instruction about informant credibility before Bosque testified and, after the improper answer, immediately instructed the jury to disregard Bosque’s reference to prior testimony; the court denied the mistrial motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Boutilier)	Held
1. Denial of jury view of crime scene	A view was unnecessary because testimony, a diagram with undisputed dimensions, photographs, and a videotape adequately conveyed the kitchen layout.	A courtroom view was necessary to show the cramped kitchen and steep stairwell relevant to self‑defense.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; jury had sufficient evidence and a view would have been cumulative.
2. Denial of mistrial for bolstering/vouching	Curative instruction cured any prejudice; Bosque’s credibility was for the jury to weigh given his felony record and incentives.	Prosecutor’s question and Bosque’s answer improperly bolstered witness credibility; the answer was highly prejudicial and required a mistrial.	Denial of mistrial affirmed; curative instruction was adequate and jury presumed to follow it absent strong showing otherwise.

State v. Oden, 43 Conn. App. 480, 684 A.2d 1195 (Conn. App. 1996) (factors and discretion for ordering jury view of scene)
State v. Cato, 21 Conn. App. 403, 574 A.2d 240 (Conn. App. 1990) (trial court’s discretion on scene‑view rulings reviewed for abuse)
State v. Coltherst, 87 Conn. App. 93, 864 A.2d 869 (Conn. App. 2005) (standards for granting mistrial and appellate review)
State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526, 737 A.2d 392 (Conn. 1999) (presumption that jury follows curative instructions; burden on defendant to show irreparable prejudice)
State v. Boutilier, 133 Conn. App. 493, 36 A.3d 282 (Conn. App. 2012) (prior related appeal and convictions)
State v. Correa, 241 Conn. 322, 696 A.2d 944 (Conn. 1997) (due process standard: fair trial, not a perfect one)