316 Conn. 20
Conn.2015Background
- Victim (12) accused defendant, her mother's long-term boyfriend, of multiple sexual assaults in 2009, including forced oral sex and digital/genital contact.
- Initial reports to police and a forensic interview were conducted; no physical evidence was introduced at trial.
- Defendant pleaded not guilty and did not testify at trial; defense called other witnesses (wife, DCF social worker).
- Prosecutor, in closing, argued the victim was credible and stated that “no person’s testimony” contradicted her allegations or provided a motive to lie. Defense made no contemporaneous objection.
- Jury convicted on multiple counts (first and fourth degree sexual assault; risk of injury to a child); defendant appealed claiming prosecutorial comment impermissibly referred to his failure to testify. The Appellate Court affirmed; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certified appeal on that narrow issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ruffin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s remark that “no person’s testimony” contradicted the victim improperly commented on defendant’s right not to testify | Statements were fair credibility arguments about the victim and strengths/consistencies of the state’s evidence | The remark effectively pointed to the defendant’s silence because only he could contradict the specific details of the assaults, thus penalizing his Fifth Amendment right | Court held remarks were proper: they addressed victim credibility, not defendant’s silence, and did not naturally and necessarily refer to his failure to testify |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prohibits prosecutor/comment by court on defendant’s silence under Fifth Amendment)
- State v. Walker, 206 Conn. 300 (1988) (‘‘not contradicted’’ argument improper only in rare cases where only defendant could contradict testimony)
- State v. Rizzo, 266 Conn. 171 (2003) (analysis whether prosecutor’s comments were manifestly intended or naturally and necessarily taken as comment on defendant’s failure to testify)
- State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (2006) (framework for reviewing unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct claims using Williams factors)
- United States ex rel. Leak v. Follette, 418 F.2d 1266 (2d Cir. 1969) (prosecutor may stress credibility and lack of contradiction without it being a veiled comment on defendant’s silence)