State v. Bunn, 196 Conn.App. 549

Defendant Ricky Bunn, Jr. convicted by jury of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and carrying a pistol without a permit; sentenced to 47 years; appeal challenges prosecutor’s cross‑examination question.
Key inculpatory evidence: co‑defendant Otis Burton and Helwig testified Bunn shot the victim; Helwig saw Bunn with a recently discharged handgun and heard Bunn admit the shooting; phone records and a post‑arrest letter about a buried gun corroborated the timeline and confession.
On cross‑examination the prosecutor asked whether Bunn had reviewed police/FBI reports and discussed them with his lawyers ("without getting into conversations with your lawyer ... you talked to your lawyers about what’s in those statements and those reports, right?").
Defense counsel did not object at trial; the court nevertheless, sua sponte the next day, gave a specific curative instruction: the question was improper, stricken, and jurors were told they may draw no adverse inference from consulting counsel and to disregard the Q&A.
Bunn argued on appeal that the question implied he had tailored his testimony with counsel and documentary evidence, constituting prosecutorial impropriety that deprived him of a fair trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor’s question referencing consultation with counsel was prosecutorial impropriety that deprived Bunn of a fair trial	The State: commenting on a defendant’s opportunity to hear testimony and review evidence is permissible; even if improper, any harm was cured by the court’s specific curative instruction and the Williams factors favor the State	Bunn: the question implied he and counsel contrived/tailored his testimony from documents, attacking his credibility and violating due process	Court: Even if the question was improper, the trial court’s prompt, specific curative instruction, the low severity and singular nature of the question, corroborating evidence, and other Williams factors show no deprivation of a fair trial; conviction affirmed

State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (sets multi‑factor test for whether prosecutorial impropriety denied due process)
State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 (Conn. 2007) (explains applying Williams factors and reviewing unpreserved prosecutorial‑impropriety claims)
State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290 (Conn. 2000) (comments on permissibility of impeaching a defendant for opportunity to tailor testimony)
State v. Santiago, 100 Conn. App. 236 (Conn. App. 2007) (cautions prosecutors when referencing a defendant’s consultation with counsel)
State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364 (Conn. 2003) (explains curative instruction efficacy and need for specificity)
State v. A. M., 324 Conn. 190 (Conn. 2016) (discusses when credibility is central to the case)
State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (Conn. 2004) (addresses role of strength of state’s case in harmlessness analysis)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (articulates framework for unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (Conn. 2012) (explains appellant’s burden when not invoking a specific enumerated constitutional right)