State v. Sullivan, 351 Conn. 798

Defendant Casey Liem Sullivan was convicted in Connecticut state court for unlawful restraint, sexual assault in the fourth degree, attempted sexual assault in the third degree, and sexual assault in the third degree, involving allegations made by a female visitor (C) who was staying at his house.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor, Anne Mahoney, made statements referring to typical defenses in criminal and sexual assault cases, specifically using the phrase "nuts and sluts" to describe common defenses and asserting that C would "have to be nuts to make all of this up."
The defense argued that C fabricated her story in connection with a rent dispute, seeking to undermine her and her mother K's credibility, but did not suggest that C was mentally ill or promiscuous.
The prosecutor's comments were challenged on appeal as improperly inflammatory and prejudicial, with the Appellate Court upholding the conviction, finding no due process violation.
The Connecticut Supreme Court granted further review, analyzing both the propriety and prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's remarks, ultimately affirming the Appellate Court's decision and denial of a new trial.

Issue	Sullivan's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether "nuts and sluts" was improper	Highly inflammatory, appeals to jury emotion; not based on facts	Distasteful, but permissible rhetorical response	Improper, not based on evidence, inflammatory
Whether listing defenses shifted burden	Listing usual defenses in argument shifted burden to defendant	List was response to defense, not shift of burden	Did not shift burden; but mischaracterized defense
Whether remarks distorted state's burden	Suggests jury could only acquit if it found C “nuts”	Sought to inject common sense, did not mislead	Distorted burden by misrepresenting defense theory
Cumulative prejudicial effect	Remarks so infected trial as to deny fair trial	Isolated, infrequent, did not substantially affect	Not so prejudicial as to deny due process

State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (sets out the factors for evaluating prosecutorial impropriety and prejudice)
State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (mischaracterization of the defense's theory and improper distortion of the burden of proof)
State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763 (improper prosecutorial appeal to juror emotion)
State v. Ciullo, 314 Conn. 28 (limits on prosecutorial rhetoric and duties to base argument on evidence)