State v. Petion, 161 A.3d 618

Background

In May 2012 the defendant, Divenson Petion, entered Rosa Bran’s Norwalk apartment, assaulted Robert Raphael and Bran with a knife during a confrontation and fled; both victims were hospitalized.
Raphael sustained life‑threatening facial injuries requiring surgery and resulting in permanent scarring and nerve damage.
Bran sustained two lacerations to her left forearm (one 4 cm) that required sutures (one required ten stitches) and left a permanent ~1.5‑inch visible scar.
The state charged Petion with two counts of first‑degree assault (§ 53a‑59(a)(1)) alleging he intended to cause serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument; a jury convicted on both counts.
On appeal Petion challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence that Bran suffered a “serious physical injury” (serious disfigurement), and (2) alleged prosecutorial improprieties in closing argument. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Petion)	Held
Sufficiency: whether Bran suffered a "serious physical injury" (serious disfigurement)	Evidence of healed permanent forearm scar from 4 cm laceration (ten stitches) supported a reasonable jury finding of serious disfigurement	Scar was minor (abrasion + two small lacerations), not immediately noticed, not warranting first‑degree assault	Affirmed: photographs, physician testimony, and permanency of 1.5" scar supported jury finding of serious disfigurement and thus serious physical injury
Prosecutorial impropriety: counsel expressed opinion of guilt during closing	Prosecutor’s remarks were arguments tied to evidence and intended to attack the alibi and highlight weaknesses	Statements ("there’s really no dispute" defendant did it) improperly vouched for guilt and usurped jury role	Affirmed: comments were reasonable argument about weaknesses in alibi, not improper opinion of guilt
Prosecutorial impropriety: appealed to jurors’ emotions / asked them to identify with victim	Arguing visibility and permanency of scar and its practical effects was fact‑based, relevant to serious disfigurement element	Asking jurors (mostly female) to imagine hardship invoked emotion and prejudice	Affirmed: references were factually grounded and not an improper appeal to passion or sympathy
Prosecutorial impropriety: vouched about defense witness credibility in rebuttal	Prosecutor pointed to evidence of bias and credibility issues and invited jury to consider that evidence	Prosecutor improperly expressed personal belief that witness was biased	Affirmed: prosecutor’s remarks framed as inferences from trial evidence and permissible attack on credibility

Key Cases Cited

State v. Whitnum‑Baker, 169 Conn. App. 523 (discussing sufficiency review standard)
State v. Nelson, 118 Conn. App. 831 (scarring affecting skin appearance can establish serious disfigurement)
State v. Hayward, 116 Conn. App. 511 (facial lacerations and resulting scarring sufficient for serious disfigurement)
State v. Nival, 42 Conn. App. 307 (small permanent facial scar supports serious physical injury)
State v. Gibson, 302 Conn. 653 (prosecutor must not express opinion of defendant's guilt)
State v. Griswold, 160 Conn. App. 528 (two‑step analysis for prosecutorial impropriety: whether improper and whether it deprived defendant of a fair trial)
State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763 (distinguishing permissible fact‑based rhetorical argument from improper appeals to passion)