State v. Holley, 144 Conn. App. 558

Holley was convicted by jury of one count of risk of injury to a child under § 53-21 (a)(1).
The defense challenged sufficiency of the evidence and alleged prosecutorial improprieties in closing.
On August 21, 2010, K and her young child Z went to the defendant’s New Haven apartment for braiding, with Z sleeping on the bed during the events.
The defendant barricaded a bedroom door, refused to lie on the floor, and engaged in a violent confrontation with five police officers near Z, while K and the defendant’s girlfriend were present.
Police entered after forcible entry; the struggle caused the bed to move, potentially endangering Z, who was on the bed during the altercation.
The trial court denied suppression motions; the jury acquitted on other charges and this court affirmed the conviction and rejected the prosecutorial impropriety claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support § 53-21 risk	State contends the defendant’s conduct showed reckless disregard near Z.	Holley argues the evidence does not establish a risk to Z’s life or limb.	Evidence supports reckless disregard endangering the child.
Prosecutorial impropriety in closing	State argues remarks were proper rebuttal and fair comment within discretion.	Holley asserts remarks violated due process and his Fifth Amendment rights by commenting on witnesses and testimony.	Remarks not improper; reversible error not shown.

State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (2005) (jurors apply common knowledge to assess risk in sufficiency analysis)
State v. Gibson, 302 Conn. 653 (2011) (prosecutorial argument must be fair and based on evidence; heightened duty to avoid misdirection)
State v. John M., 87 Conn. App. 301 (2005) (limited use of sarcasm in rebuttal not improper)