State v. Tarasiuk, 125 Conn. App. 544

Tarasiuk was convicted after a jury trial of breach of the peace in the second degree, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia under Connecticut statutes.
On June 5, 2008, at a New Britain courthouse proceeding on child support and visitation, Tarasiuk threatened Margorzata Backiel in Polish, saying, “I will kill you.”
After the threat, the courtroom marshal detained Tarasiuk; state police arrested him and inventory revealed marijuana and a plastic tube with burnt residue in his backpack.
Testing showed the plant material and residue were marijuana; Tarasiuk denied ownership of the items.
He was sentenced to a total effective term of 3 years, 9 months after probation violation was found; he appealed challenging the verdicts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction on true threats was proper.	Tarasiuk argues the instruction lacked the requisite definition of a true threat.	Tarasiuk contends the instruction was deficient for not excluding mere bluster.	No error; instruction given was proper as a true threat standard.
Whether prosecutorial impropriety deprived Tarasiuk of a fair trial.	State argues closing remarks urging the jury to send a message were permissible.	Tarasiuk contends such remarks were improper and prejudicial.	Not improper; remarks did not deprive due process.

State v. DeLoreto, 265 Conn. 145 (2003) (defines true threats and applicable doctrine in Connecticut)
State v. Pires, 122 Conn.App. 729 (2010) (charge reviewed for overall effect on jury; not dissected in isolation)
State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1 (2003) (prosecutor may tell defendant to listen; not to community)
State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633 (2006) (prosecutorial zeal balanced with fairness in closing)
State v. Griffin, 97 Conn. App. 169 (2006) (permissible to urge jury to make defendant listen)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (test for reviewing unpreserved constitutional errors)