State v. Robert B., 200 Conn.App. 637

On August 12, 2017, defendant Robert B. confronted his former wife (T) and their two sons outside a Stamford dentist; he grabbed and dragged the younger son (D), who was able to escape; T and others intervened and police were later involved.
Defendant was arrested on warrant, charged with unlawful restraint in the first degree (§ 53a-95) and breach of the peace in the second degree (§ 53a-181(a)(1)).
Defendant represented himself at trial; the jury found him guilty of both counts; he was sentenced to 18 months incarceration concurrent and fined.
On cross-examination of T the defendant elicited testimony about his prior arrests, protective orders, and other bad acts; defendant later claimed due process violation from that testimony.
The court did not instruct the jury on unlawful restraint in the second degree; the state had at one point indicated it might seek the lesser included instruction but ultimately did not; defendant did not request the instruction or except to the charge.
Two prosecutors (Nemec and Weiss) appeared for the state; Weiss objected during cross-examination though Nemec had conducted the direct examinations; defendant argued this constituted prosecutorial impropriety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Robert)	Held
1) Testimony about prior bad acts/arrests on cross — due process/fair trial	No constitutional error; defendant himself elicited the testimony; it is an evidentiary matter and was not preserved by objection/strike request	Admission of prior bad acts/arrests prejudiced jury and denied fair trial	Unpreserved and not of constitutional magnitude; not reviewable under Golding; claim fails
2) Failure to instruct on lesser included offense (unlawful restraint 2d)	State originally signaled possible notice but did not request the instruction at charge conference; defendant reviewed proposed charge and made no request or exception	Court erred by not sua sponte giving the lesser-included instruction; defendant was entitled to it	Defendant waived the claim by acquiescence (did not request or except to charge); instructional error not reviewable
3) Prosecutorial impropriety — second prosecutor objecting during cross	Practice Book §5-4 does not explicitly bar a second prosecutor from objecting; use of two prosecutors is common; no misconduct warranting reversal	Having one prosecutor examine and another object was unfair and prejudicial — "flip flop" deprived him of a fair trial	No prosecutorial impropriety found; practice discouraged but not reversible error

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (unpreserved constitutional claims: four-part test for appellate review)
State v. Ferrone, 97 Conn. 258 (evidence of other crimes/bad character is generally inadmissible)
State v. Whistnant, 179 Conn. 576 (standard for when a lesser included offense instruction must be given)
State v. Talton, 197 Conn. 280 (other-crimes evidence governed by evidentiary rules)
State v. Gardner, 297 Conn. 58 (erroneous prior-misconduct evidence is state-law evidentiary issue, not per se constitutional)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (implied waiver can bar Golding review of instructional claims)
State v. Pernell, 194 Conn. App. 394 (two-step framework for prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Williams factors for assessing prejudice from prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Smith, 212 Conn. 593 (invited error: responsive answers cannot be later used to secure reversal)
State v. Holley, 327 Conn. 576 (answers responsive to questions need not be stricken where properly responsive)