State v. Fluker, AC47256

Background

Fluker was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit murder, arson in the second degree, and tampering with physical evidence, and received a thirty-five-year sentence. 1
The evidence showed that Fluker and accomplice Emmanuel Floyd pursued the victim in separate cars, and Floyd shot the victim after Fluker urged him to do so. 2
Police linked Fluker to the burned Nissan, the victim's shooting, and the crime scene through surveillance footage, CSLI, DNA from the car, and Facebook evidence from the vehicle purchase. 3
During trial, Detective Scott testified that a CODIS DNA hit from a Lunchables container matched a record for a 'known felon' and identified that person as Fluker. 4
The trial court struck Scott's remark, repeatedly offered a curative instruction that Fluker declined, and later denied Fluker's mistrial motions. 5
The prosecutor made several challenged closing-argument remarks, including calling Floyd a 'snitch,' misstating that Castro testified to a 'street name,' and appealing to sympathy for the victim. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Scott's 'known felon' testimony required a mistrial 7	Fluker said the remark irreparably stigmatized him as a felon.	The state said the remark was brief, struck, and cured.	No abuse of discretion; mistrial unwarranted. 8
Whether prosecutorial improprieties in closing denied a fair trial 9	Fluker said the prosecutor stigmatized him, misstated evidence, and appealed to sympathy.	The state said most comments were proper and any improprieties were harmless.	Some remarks were improper, but the trial remained fair. 10
Whether the court plainly erred by not giving a cooperation-agreement instruction sua sponte 11	Fluker claimed Floyd needed a special credibility instruction.	The state said existing law required no such sua sponte instruction.	No plain error. 12

Key Cases Cited

State v. Nichols, 226 Conn. App. 359 (Conn. App. 2024) (mistrial reviewed for abuse of discretion; curative action preferred over mistrial 13)
State v. Collins, 206 Conn. App. 438 (Conn. App. 2021) (prior-crimes evidence generally inadmissible; curative instruction may avoid mistrial 14)
State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255 (Conn. 1986) (brief references to prior misconduct cured by instruction 15)
State v. Tarver, 166 Conn. App. 304 (Conn. App. 2016) (curative instructions can eliminate prejudice from improper prior-crimes references 16)
State v. Mitchell, 110 Conn. App. 305 (Conn. App. 2008) (tactical choice to forego curative instruction is not second-guessed on appeal 17)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (governing factors for prosecutorial impropriety prejudice analysis 18)
State v. Antwon B., 236 Conn. App. 428 (Conn. App. 2025) (failure to object is relevant but not always fatal in impropriety review 19)
State v. Dabate, 351 Conn. 428 (Conn. 2025) (courts assess cumulative effect of improprieties in context of the whole trial 20)
State v. Michael T., 338 Conn. 705 (Conn. 2021) (prosecutor may not appeal to emotion, but rhetorical flourish is allowed 21)
State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2022) (special credibility instructions recognized for limited witness categories 22)
State v. Orlando F., 233 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2025) (plain error requires clear, obvious error under law existing at trial 23)
State v. Silva, 339 Conn. 598 (Conn. 2021) (plain error unavailable for a novel instruction not clearly required at trial 24)