State v. O'Brien-Veader, 122 A.3d 555

Background

Defendant Matthew O’Brien-Veader killed Joed Olivera in a Waterbury factory after escalating conflict; defendant confessed and was tried for murder, felony murder, and second-degree kidnapping. Jury convicted on all counts; extreme emotional disturbance defense (psychiatric expert Seth Feuerstein) failed.
Central factual dispute at trial: whether the killing was an impulsive reaction to perceived sexual misconduct (defense) or a deliberate, motivated homicide (state). Defendant did not contest he committed the killing.
At trial, the prosecutor vigorously cross-examined the defense psychiatrist, including references to undisclosed or excluded medical records, prior threats/knife incidents, and a rhetorical description of the defendant as "a mean and nasty person who was looking to kill somebody." The court sustained objections and gave curative instructions.
Defense moved for mistrial based on (a) a police witness’s unprompted comment about using a prior booking photograph and (b) the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s questioning; motions were denied. Court also excluded two defense witnesses proffered to corroborate the extreme emotional disturbance defense.
On appeal the defendant raised (1) prosecutorial impropriety (cross-exam and closing), (2) denial of mistrials, (3) insufficiency of evidence for kidnapping (predicate for felony murder), and (4) erroneous exclusion of defense witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (O’Brien-Veader)	Held
Prosecutorial impropriety in cross-exam and summation	Cross-examination and closing were fair attacks on expert credibility and reasonable argument rooted in evidence.	Prosecutor’s sarcasm, personal attacks, stage-whisper about excluded records, and references to undisclosed misconduct were improper and denied a fair trial.	Two isolated improprieties found ("mean and nasty" label and reference to excluded records) but, under Williams factors, they did not deprive defendant of a fair trial; remainder of challenged questions/remarks were not constitutional impropriety.
Denial of motions for mistrial (booking photo comment & cumulative misconduct)	Curative instructions and strikes cured any prejudice; mistrial was too drastic.	Booking-photo remark and cumulative improper questioning required mistrial.	Trial court did not abuse discretion: brief reference to booking photo and other errors were mitigated by prompt curative instructions; mistrial unwarranted.
Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree kidnapping (predicate for felony murder)	Movement and confinement across multiple locations, length of struggle, and intent to torture support kidnapping beyond incidental restraint.	Movement was incidental to the murder; kidnapping not established under Salamon.	Evidence sufficient: prolonged movements, forced relocations at knifepoint and intent to torture supported kidnapping not merely incidental to murder.
Exclusion of two defense witnesses (brother re: family abuse; witness re: victim’s prior same-sex encounter)	Testimony was irrelevant or cumulative; hearsay concerns for brother’s testimony; prior encounter too remote to be probative of the defense.	Exclusions thwarted corroboration of extreme emotional disturbance and violated right to present a defense.	Exclusions affirmed: brother’s testimony properly excluded as hearsay/not within residual exception; Ingram’s testimony remote and not sufficiently relevant; right to present a defense not violated.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilson, 308 Conn. 412 (discusses analysis for prosecutorial impropriety and two-step Williams framework)
State v. Maguire, 310 Conn. 535 (improper prosecutor references to redacted or excluded materials can be constitutionally prejudicial)
State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (kidnapping requires movement or confinement beyond that incidental to another crime)
State v. Ward, 306 Conn. 718 (application of Salamon factors; movement/confinement sufficient when it materially increases victim’s restraint)
State v. Ciullo, 314 Conn. 28 (limits on prosecutor expressing personal opinion and permissible argument rooted in evidence)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (sets forth factors for evaluating whether prosecutorial misconduct violated due process)