State v. Kurrus, 137 Conn. App. 604

In 2003 the defendant and Cohen orally agreed to sell Cohen’s 1967 Healey; no written contract existed and the defendant retrieved the car the next day.
From 2003 to 2007 Cohen had infrequent contact; starting April 2007, Cohen sought more updates and, in August 2007, received a fax promising $25,000 for the Healey.
In 2005 Torsone purchased a 1967 Jaguar and later entrusted Paradise Garage to sell and discuss further work; no written contract but an oral arrangement existed.
By May 2007 the defendant engaged in a cash-and-trade scheme involving Cohen’s Healey, Torsone’s Jaguar, a third-party Healey, and the defendant’s Porsche, with the Jaguar sale arranged to Paradise Garage using forged signatures on the registration.
The defendant instructed an acquaintance to sign the Jaguar’s New York registration over to Paradise Garage and to sign Torsone’s name; police were alerted when Torsone reported the Jaguar stolen.
Cohen learned of the trade and, by August 2007, informed the defendant he would go to authorities if not paid; Cohen testified inconsistencies existed regarding a trade and had no recollection of authorization for the trade.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mistake of fact instruction for all counts	State contends there was no evidentiary basis for mistake of fact.	Kurrus contends he misperceived authority, entitling an instruction.	Court denied error; no basis for mistake of fact instruction.
Sufficiency of evidence for larceny of the Healey	State argues evidence shows wrongful withholding of the Healey without authorization for the trade.	Kurrus argues emails created authorization for the trade and thus lack of intent to steal.	Evidence sufficient to support larceny conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecutorial impropriety regarding 'victims'	State asserts isolated use of 'victims' was not improper given context and jury instructions.	Kurrus maintains repeated use was prejudicial.	Remarks not improper; no due process violation found.

State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (standard for properly tailored jury instructions)
State v. Woods, 250 Conn. 807 (1999) (instructions not to confuse issues with unsupported evidence)
State v. Mason, 186 Conn. 574 (1982) (reversible error requires possible misdirection of jurors)
State v. Rosado, 178 Conn. 704 (1979) (innocence or denial of participation is not a defense)
State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268 (1998) (mistake of fact requires evidence of misperception)
State v. Silveira, 198 Conn. 454 (1986) (mistake of fact relates to misperception of facts, not unformed intent)
State v. Flowers, 69 Conn. App. 57 (2002) (elements of larceny include lack of owner’s consent)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (2006) (prosecutorial references to 'victim' must be weighed for prejudicial impact)
State v. Rodriguez, 107 Conn. App. 685 (2008) (sporadic use of 'victim' not per se prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163 (2011) (isolated use of the term victim generally not improper)
State v. Albino, 130 Conn. App. 745 (2011) (prosecutorial references evaluated in closing arguments)