State v. Gibson, 302 Conn. 653

Gibson was convicted of failure to appear in the first degree under § 53a-172(a)(1) and acquitted of stalking in the first degree under § 53a-181c.
Appellate Court reversed, holding prosecutor's two uses of 'I think' during closing argument violated due process.
On Oct 23, 2005, victim Farineau observed a blue Jeep Liberty following him, later identified the driver as Gibson, who had previously stalked the victim.
April 4, 2006 pretrial colloquy discussed a May 5, 2006 court date; Gibson allegedly failed to appear on May 5; rearrest order issued.
Gibson testified he did not knowingly fail to appear because he thought the hearing was May 16, 2006, and he turned himself in after learning of the rearrest.
Closing argument included 'I think he did' and 'Is it safe to assume... May 16?', with no objection; jury found guilty of failure to appear and not guilty on stalking; Appellate Court reversed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor's 'I think' remarks were improper expression of personal opinion	State contends remarks were exhortation, not improper opinion	Gibson contends remarks conveyed personal knowledge and prejudice	Not improper; remarks did not deprive due process, though better to avoid such phrasing

State v. Camacho, 282 Conn. 328 (Conn. 2007) (prosecutorial limits in closing argument; fair and based on evidence)
State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414 (Conn. 2006) (first-person phrases do not automatically constitute impropriety when arguing from evidence)
State v. Bermudez, 274 Conn. 581 (Conn. 2005) (avoidance of personal opinion, but not per se improper if not prejudicial)
State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106 (Conn. 2004) (use of 'I would think' not always improper)
State v. Santiago, 269 Conn. 726 (Conn. 2004) (jurors can differentiate argument from unsworn testimony)
State v. Ancona, 270 Conn. 568 (Conn. 2004) (recitation of evidentiary predicates not improper opinion when urging inferences)
State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (two-step prosecutorial impropriety analysis; due process)
State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (Conn. 2004) (prosecutorial impropriety requires determining impropriety first)