State v. DARRYL W., 303 Conn. 353

Darryl W. (defendant) was married to the victim D’s sister; D and her family stayed with him for months after losing their house.
The incident occurred when the defendant lured D to a Waterbury commuter lot, drove her to his home, and restrained her at gunpoint.
The defendant used an air pistol (CO2-powered) that later was shown capable of firing with BBs and a CO2 cartridge, though no ammunition was found at the time.
D testified to nonconsensual contact; the defendant claimed prior consensual activity and argued the pistol was not operable.
The state charged the defendant with attempted aggravated sexual assault in the first degree (53a-70a(a)(1)), kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm (53a-92a), and related verdicts; the trial court instructed on operability and the defendant’s affirmative defense under 53a-16a.
Judgment of conviction and of violation of probation followed the jury verdict; the defendant appealed raising jury instruction and prosecutorial-argument issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether operability must be proven as an element for 53a-70a(a)(1) and 53a-92a.	State—operability is not required as an element; representations can satisfy the offense.	W aited to prove operability as an element; challenged jury instructions.	Claim unpreserved/waived; no Golding plain-error reversal.
Whether inoperability as an affirmative defense under 53a-16a should include unloaded or mechanically inoperable weapons.	State—defendant’s interpretation not required; defense not misapplied.	Defense should include unloaded or nonfunctional weapon as inoperable.	Claim not preserved; no plain-error reversal.
Whether the senior assistant state’s closing comments were prosecutorial misconduct.	State—comments were within proper inference from evidence.	Comments improperly vouched for credibility or stated facts not in evidence.	No prosecutorial impropriety; judgments affirmed.
Whether the jury’s question about operability was adequately answered.	Court’s initial charge and clarification were correct.	Clarification should have more clearly required operability aspects.	No reversible error; response within permissible practice.

State v. Hawthorne, 175 Conn. 569 (1978) (operability as affirmative defense in robbery context; not essential element)
State v. Fabricatore, 281 Conn. 469 (2007) (waiver principles; Golding review limits)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (express/implicit waiver of instructional errors; Golding application)
State v. Holness, 289 Conn. 535 (2008) (limits on Golding review when waiver exists)
State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 (2011) (correct application of plain error; standard)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (2006) (prosecutorial conduct and scope of closing arguments)
State v. Mozell, 291 Conn. 62 (2009) (induced error and plain-error review in waiver contexts)