State v. O'Brien-Veader, 318 Conn. 514

Defendant Matthew O’Brien-Veader convicted of murder; judgment of conviction affirmed by the court.
During cross-examination of the defense psychiatric expert (Dr. Seth Feuerstein), prosecutor asked about a prior violent episode in which friends removed a knife from the defendant and threats to kill.
Feuerstein acknowledged incomplete information and that such facts were "not irrelevant," but maintained his opinion that the defendant had no history of violence.
Prosecutor then said the defendant might be "a mean and nasty person who was looking to kill somebody," prompting a defense objection.
The majority viewed the remark as improper; Justice Espinosa concurred in the affirmance but wrote separately, arguing the comment was permissible impeachment and contextually ambiguous rather than a character-attack.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s comment calling defendant “a mean and nasty person” was improper and suggested criminal propensity	Comment was a permissible, contextual attempt to impeach the expert’s incomplete evaluation and suggest an alternative explanation for the defendant’s conduct	Comment was an improper attack on defendant’s character/propensity for criminal behavior, prejudicial to a fair trial	Judgment of conviction affirmed; Justice Espinosa (concurring) would find the comment proper impeachment given the context and its mild phrasing
Standard for assessing alleged prosecutorial impropriety on cross-examination (ambiguity and context)	Ambiguous or inartful remarks should not be inferred to have their most damaging meaning; courts must consider context and the legitimate impeachment purpose	Even mild pejorative labeling can be improper if it suggests criminal propensity and prejudices the jury	Concurrence emphasizes context, ambiguity, and the legitimacy of impeaching expert testimony; cautions against overbroad application of "impropriety" to minor, inartful comments

State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (discusses limits on prosecutor remarks and that impropriety is measured regardless of effect)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (ambiguous prosecutorial remarks should not be construed to have their most damaging meaning)
State v. Oehman, 212 Conn. 325 (example of clearly improper, inflammatory prosecutor language)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (example of prosecutorial epithets condemned as improper)
State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530 (example of strongly denounced prosecutorial language)
State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (prosecutorial impropriety claims not for tactical sandbagging; meant for severe violations)
State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787 (prosecutors must be zealous but not shackled by inadequate advocacy)