State v. Crump, 2013 WL 4792470

Background

Defendant Durosola Crump (adult, relation: first cousin once removed) was convicted after a jury trial of: one count sexual assault in the fourth degree, two counts attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, and six counts of risk of injury to a child. Total effective sentence: 25 years incarceration.
Victim was an 11‑year‑old girl who alleged three separate sexual assaults at her grandmother’s house (fondling, attempted intercourse, forced oral sex); disclosures occurred about a month later to her brother and then mother.
Forensic interview and medical exam were conducted; the medical exam was inconclusive and the forensic interview differed in parts from trial testimony.
On appeal Crump raised (1) prosecutorial impropriety during closing and summation (including alleged comment on failure to testify, vouching for victim, emotional appeals, and comments on facts outside the record), and (2) that sentencing (nonsuspendible terms, mandatory counseling, and victims fund contribution) was illegal because the wrong statutes were applied.
Trial court sentenced without contemporaneous objections to the challenged prosecutor remarks or to the sentencing statutes; on appeal the court reviewed prosecutorial claims under due process standards but declined to review the sentencing statutory claims as unpreserved and not appropriate for plain‑error relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cumulative prosecutorial impropriety deprived Crump of a fair trial	Prosecutor improperly commented on failure to testify, vouched for victim, appealed to sympathy, and argued facts outside record; these infected the trial	Many remarks were proper argument or reasonable inferences; only limited remarks exceeded bounds and were harmless	One comment (about gynecological exam/vulnerability) reached outside the record but, under Williams factors, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial; conviction affirmed
Whether prosecutor impermissibly commented on defendant’s failure to testify	Prosecutor’s remarks about defendant being "not the easiest person to get in trouble" were an indirect comment on silence	Remarks related to evidence and explained why victim would accuse a family member; not a comment on silence	Not improper; jury would not necessarily view it as comment on failure to testify
Whether prosecutor vouched for victim or improperly appealed to emotion	Prosecutor urged sympathy, described victim as vulnerable, and implied consistency between out‑of‑court statements and trial testimony	Statements were reasonable inferences from testimony, invited common‑sense assessment, and reminded jury they need not credit the victim	Not improper; comments were grounded in evidence and within permissible latitude for argument
Whether sentencing relief is warranted for alleged statutory errors	Sentencing imposed incorrect nonsuspendible terms and statutory conditions under wrong statutes	No contemporaneous objection; errors (if any) are cognizable by trial court via Practice Book §43‑22; appeal not proper vehicle	Declined to review unpreserved sentencing claims under plain error; defendant may seek correction in trial court; judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Taft, 51 A.3d 988 (Conn. 2012) (two‑step prosecutorial impropriety analysis and burden on defendant to show impropriety)
State v. Long, 975 A.2d 660 (Conn. 2009) (prosecutor may not vouch for witness credibility but may argue reasonable inferences from evidence)
State v. Warholic, 897 A.2d 569 (Conn. 2006) (jurors may apply common sense; child‑abuse prosecutions often hinge on victim credibility)
State v. Jones, 44 A.3d 848 (Conn. App. 2012) (prosecutor must confine argument to the record; unsworn facts are improper)
State v. Williams, 529 A.2d 653 (Conn. 1987) (factors to assess whether prosecutorial impropriety deprived defendant of fair trial)
State v. Stevenson, 849 A.2d 626 (Conn. 2004) (application of Williams factors in reviewing prosecutorial impropriety)