141 Conn. App. 55
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Victim met Campbell in a 2009 substance abuse program and later agreed to use drugs together.
- On November 6, 2009, the victim accompanied Campbell to his Bridgeport home after obtaining drugs and alcohol.
- Campbell allegedly blocked her and assaulted her at knifepoint, initiating vaginal and anal intercourse.
- The victim testified she asked for a condom; Campbell complied, then denied bathroom access for a period.
- Police responded after the victim called 911; she was examined at a hospital with a rape kit.
- Cam pbell was charged with sexual assault in the first degree and persistent serious felony offender; kidnapping was later partially resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial impropriety in closing arguments | Campbell argues improper statements harmed fairness | State contends statements were permissible or curable | No substantial prejudice; not due to cumulative misconduct |
| Golden rule argument using 'you' | Prosecutor used 'you' to evoke sympathy | Not all uses were improper; some were permissible inferences | Isolated improper use; overall not prosecutorial misconduct |
| Expert opinion on drug addiction habits | Prosecutor ventured facts not in evidence about addicts | Statements were not supported by evidence | Improper; court cured by instructions and evidence favored the state |
| Credibility bolstering about victim's reasons for rape-kit | Prosecutor vouched for the victim's credibility | Prosecutor referenced trial evidence and victim's statements | Not improper; statements pertained to trial evidence and were curable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (prosecutorial misconduct factors for due process analysis)
- State v. Long, 293 Conn. 31 (2009) (golden rule and emotional appeals; limits of argument)
- State v. Moore, 293 Conn. 781 (2009) (two-step analysis for prosecutorial impropriety)
- State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748 (2007) (emotional appeals improper in certain contexts)
- State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440 (2003) (precedent on curative instructions and severity of remarks)
- State v. Ovechka, 118 Conn. App. 733 (2010) (contextual evaluation of prosecutorial remarks)
- State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290 (2000) (prosecutor cannot express opinion as to witness credibility or facts not in evidence)
- State v. Quint, 97 Conn. App. 72 (2006) (limited improper closing argument; cure by instructions)
- State v. Jones, 139 Conn. App. 469 (2012) (credibility central issue when victim's testimony core)