128 Conn. App. 528
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- On April 27, 2008, Miller argued with his wife Bassell at their East Hartford home and pushed her to the ground.
- Bassell left and contacted a cousin, then met a friend, Micandre Brown, at a drugstore to be picked up.
- Miller ran toward Brown wielding a silver knife, repeatedly swung at Brown, and threatened to kill him; Brown was cut, and blood appeared on the vehicle window and interior.
- Brown sustained a one-half inch cut to his thumb; the cut was not recognized as serious by first responders at the scene.
- Police arrested Miller and he was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree assault, second-degree threatening, and carrying a dangerous weapon, with a five-year term suspended after three years and five years of probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault second degree | Bassell and Brown testified Miller injured Brown with the knife. | Insufficient proof of physical injury to Brown. | Evidence sufficient; Brown injury proved by laceration and blood evidence. |
| Prosecutorial impropriety and due process | Comments about defendant knowing the system were legitimate argument. | Comments were inflammatory and implied deceit, denying due process. | Isolated, non-repeated remarks curable; no due process violation; trial fair. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pettigrew, 124 Conn.App. 9 (2010) (standard for sufficiency review; appellate deference to credibility)
- State v. Calabrese, 279 Conn. 393 (2006) (credibility and fact-finder deference in weighing evidence)
- State v. Gilbert I., 106 Conn.App. 793 (2008) (prosecutorial argument must be fair and based on evidence)
- State v. D'Haity, 99 Conn.App. 375 (2007) (limits on prosecutorial comments in closing)
- State v. Camacho, 282 Conn. 328 (2007) (curative jury instruction can obviate harm)
- State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382 (2004) (curative instructions and impact on fairness)
- State v. Jarrett, 82 Conn. App. 489 (2004) (isolated improper remarks do not necessarily deny due process)
- State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 (2007) (frequency and seriousness of impropriety affect due process analysis)