State v. Chase, 154 Conn.App. 337

Nov. 2011–Mar. 2012: defendant stayed as houseguest in M.R. and R.N.'s home with their children, including Z, age eight at the time.
Defendant touched Z’s genital area; penetrated with a finger after removing her pajama bottoms.
Z disclosed the abuse to her parents in 2012 and police were contacted; defendant was arrested.
Trial charged defendant with first-degree sexual assault (under-13 victim, offender >2 years older), two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault, and risk of injury to a child.
Jury convicted on all counts except two fourth-degree counts, which the court later vacated due to erroneous jury instructions.
On appeal, the court remanded to reinstate the two fourth-degree convictions and consider resentencing; it also upheld first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury convictions, and addressed prosecutorial impropriety and sufficiency issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial impropriety during closing arguments	Chase contends remarks appealed to emotions and vouched for credibility.	Chase argues improper influence on jurors via emotional appeals and implied credibility.	Prosecutorial remarks did not deprive due process; not reversible error given context and safeguards.
Insufficiency of evidence for sexual assault in the first degree	State contends sufficient evidence of penetration met the element.	Defense disputes proof of penetration.	Evidence, including forensic interview and doll demonstration, supported penetration beyond reasonable doubt.
Court's vacatur of two fourth-degree convictions; remedy and harmless error	State argues vacatur was improper; errors were harmless.	Chase argues trial court had discretion to vacate; errors were not harmless.	Vacatur reversed; convictions reinstated on remand; aggregate sentencing theory discussed but not applied to restore verdicts here.

State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 (Conn. 2007) (standard for prosecutorial impropriety and fair-trial analysis)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (two-step Williams framework for prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Lynch, 123 Conn. App. 479 (Conn. App. 2010) (allocation of discretion in evaluating impropriety factors)
State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749 (Conn. 2012) (prosecutorial remarks and fair trial assessment)
State v. Long, 293 Conn. 31 (Conn. 2009) (prosecutor's expressions of credibility vs. evidence)
State v. Crump, 145 Conn. App. 749 (Conn. App. 2013) (emphasizes common-sense inferences and non-improper emotional appeals)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (Conn. 2006) (credibility and strength of victim evidence standard)
State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (Conn. 2005) (harmless error and elements of offenses)
State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280 (Conn. 2007) (sufficiency review and reasonable-doubt standard)
State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 (Conn. 2000) (instructions on elements of sentence enhancement)
State v. Wade, 297 Conn. 262 (Conn. 2010) (aggregate sentencing theory for remanded multicount convictions)
Raucci, 21 Conn. App. 557 (Conn. App. 1990) (aggregate package theory in remanded sentencing contexts)