State v. Parris (Concurrence & Dissent), 352 Conn. 652

The case concerns whether prosecutorial misstatements regarding the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED) under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-54a(a) denied Robert Parris a fair trial.
During closing and rebuttal arguments, prosecutors made several arguably incorrect statements about the EED defense.
The trial court provided curative instructions telling the jury to follow only the court’s direction on the law.
The defense objected to the prosecutors’ statements, arguing they could unfairly prejudice the jury.
The majority held that these misstatements deprived the defendant of a fair trial and reversed the conviction; Judge Alexander, joined by Mullins, C.J., dissented in part, concluding the misstatements were mitigated by curative instructions and did not require reversal.
The dissent agreed with the majority on other evidentiary rulings and the general standards for prosecutorial impropriety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held (Dissent)
Did misstatements of EED law by prosecutors deprive Parris of a fair trial?	Misstatements so prejudicial they made trial unfair.	Jury cured by instructions; no undue prejudice.	No due process violation—curative instructions sufficient.
Were curative instructions by the trial court effective?	Jury could not disregard the impactful misstatements.	Jury presumed to follow curative instructions.	Curative measures protected defendant’s rights.
Severity/frequency of impropriety sufficient to taint the trial?	Pattern of misstatements during critical phases.	Mitigated by repeated correct statements and reminders.	Overall fairness not undermined by misstatements.
Strength of the State’s case apart from impropriety?	EED defense credible; misstatements influential.	Evidence was not overwhelming; but not insufficient.	Evidence did not make outcome unreasonable without errors.

State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (establishes six factors for analyzing prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Sullivan, 351 Conn. 798 (Conn. 2025) (summarizes precedent governing prosecutorial impropriety and curative instructions)
State v. Courtney G., 339 Conn. 328 (Conn. 2021) (emphasizes prosecutors' duty to accurately state the law)
State v. Otto, 305 Conn. 51 (Conn. 2012) (addresses prosecutors' misstatements and jury instructions)
State v. Rizzo, 266 Conn. 171 (Conn. 2003) (concerns improper arguments and judicial remedies)
State v. Person, 236 Conn. 342 (Conn. 1996) (explains the elements and standards for the EED defense)
State v. Elliott, 177 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1979) (distinguishes objective and subjective components of the EED defense)