State v. Fasanelli, 163 Conn.App. 170

In Sept. 2010 William Fredericks, a confidential informant with pending charges, conducted two controlled buys of heroin from James Fasanelli at the Southington Motor Lodge; police wired Fredericks and monitored/recorded the encounters.
Jury convicted Fasanelli of sale of narcotics for the first transaction and acquitted on the second; he was sentenced to eight years (five to serve, three years probation suspended).
Defense emphasized inconsistencies in witness statements/reports (location of first sale, timing/signing of statements) and attacked Fredericks’ credibility, arguing he may have planted drugs to gain favor with prosecutors.
Prosecutor rebutted in closing, characterizing defense tactics as attempts to create confusion, vouched for Fredericks’ truthfulness based on the record, and described the speaker on the tape as having a "deep, very distinct voice." No contemporaneous objections were made at trial.
On appeal Fasanelli argued prosecutorial impropriety during closing and rebuttal: (1) denigrating defense counsel, (2) vouching for witness credibility, and (3) arguing facts not in evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fasanelli)	Held
Whether prosecutor improperly denigrated defense counsel	Prosecutor argued only against defense theory, responding to defense emphasis on inconsistencies tied to the record.	Comments (e.g., "poke holes," "stir up confusion") implied counsel used standard deceptive tactics and demeaned counsel’s role.	Court held comments attacked the defense theory, not counsel’s integrity; remarks were contextually tied to evidence and proper.
Whether prosecutor impermissibly vouched for witness credibility	Statements (prefaced by "I submit") were based on evidence and reasonable inferences; proper response to defense attack.	Prosecutor expressed personal opinion that Fredericks was "truthful," improperly soliciting juror reliance on prosecutor’s authority.	Court held prosecutor’s credibility statements were based on trial evidence and permissible argument, not improper vouching.
Whether prosecutor argued facts not in evidence (defendant’s voice description)	Voice on tape was in evidence; two officers identified it as defendant’s voice, so inference that it was "deep, very distinct" was reasonable.	Comment about defendant’s voice characteristics asserted facts not proven—defendant never spoke in court for jurors to compare.	Court held characterization was a permissible inference from the tape and witness identifications; not sheer speculation or unsworn testimony.

State v. Ciullo, 314 Conn. 28 (2014) (prosecutor may argue inferences from evidence but may not vouch with unsworn testimony)
State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 (2007) (two-step analysis for prosecutorial impropriety; distinction between argument and improper opinion)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (2012) (improper to tell jury defense uses standard deceptive tactics)
State v. Wilson, 308 Conn. 412 (2013) (role and responsibilities of prosecutor; rhetorical latitude in closing)
State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (2010) (disfavor of comments implying counsel intended to mislead jury)
State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (2002) (prosecutor must confine argument to record; may respond to inferences raised by defense)
State v. Nixon, 91 Conn. App. 333 (2005) (generous latitude in argument; certain phrases calling defense a distraction are permissible)
State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763 (2014) (metaphors implying deception by defense counsel are improper)
State v. Maguire, 310 Conn. 535 (2013) (phrases suggesting deception, e.g., "smoke and mirrors," improper)
State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515 (2002) (argument that counsel diverts jurors is not improper)
State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392 (2003) (admonition that jury not be "fooled" by defense was proper)

Court’s bottom line: none of the challenged remarks constituted prosecutorial impropriety; the conviction was affirmed.