State v. Diaz, 348 Conn. 750

Gonzalo Diaz was convicted of felony murder, burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, attempted robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm related to the shooting death of Denise Rogers-Rollins during a planned drug robbery.
The principal witness against Diaz, Shavonnah Draper, testified under a cooperation agreement, but did not specifically identify Diaz as the accomplice (“E”); her testimony implicated him in the events leading up to the murder.
Diaz testified in his defense, stating he accompanied Draper and Jefferson to buy drugs but denied involvement in the robbery or murder, and claimed to have remained near the car during the events.
At trial, the judge told the jury it could consider Diaz's “interest in the outcome” when assessing his credibility—an instruction the state conceded on appeal was contrary to a supervisory rule from State v. Medrano.
On appeal, Diaz argued this instruction was plain error and that the prosecutor made improper remarks during cross-examination and closing argument, violating his right to a fair trial.
The appellate court affirmed Diaz's convictions, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or prosecutorial conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction on defendant’s interest in trial outcome	(State conceded error under Medrano, but no manifest injustice)	Diaz: Instruction was plain error and unfairly prejudicial	Error was plain but not manifest injustice; no reversal
Prosecutor’s remarks on witness credibility	(State: Remarks not improper)	Diaz: Prosecutor’s comments on Draper and demeanor improper	Comments were not improper under relevant Connecticut law
Golden rule argument	(State: Not a golden rule, just asking jury to use common sense)	Diaz: Invited jurors to put themselves in his place—improper	Not a golden rule, within permissible argument
Reference to facts not in evidence during cross-examination	(State: Based on good faith, within permissible impeachment)	Diaz: Remarks referenced facts not in evidence--improper	Questions and comments permissible, not improper

State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604 (jury may not be specifically instructed to consider a defendant’s interest in the outcome of trial; general credibility instructions apply)
State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (prohibits arguments requiring the jury to conclude a witness lied to acquit)
State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763 (distinguishes between arguing witness is "wrong" and asserting they lied)
State v. Long, 293 Conn. 31 (explains the prohibition on golden rule arguments in closing argument)
State v. Barnes, 232 Conn. 740 (permits impeachment of a witness if there is a good faith basis for questions)