155 Conn. App. 582
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Victim (16) was abducted after midnight, forced into an abandoned building, sexually assaulted, forced to perform oral sex, and later fled naked; bystander transported her to police and hospital.
- DNA from semen-rich material swabbed from the victim’s mouth matched defendant’s DNA in state/national offender databases; surveillance video corroborated abduction and flight.
- Defendant conceded presence of his DNA but testified he paid the victim for consensual oral sex hours earlier as an explanation for the DNA; defense presented height analysis and witness testimony challenging parts of the state’s case.
- Jury convicted defendant of first-degree sexual assault and first-degree kidnapping; defendant moved for a new trial arguing (1) verdict against weight of evidence, (2) Brady violation (suppressed exculpatory/third-party information), and (3) prosecutorial impropriety in closing argument.
- Trial court denied the new-trial motion; defendant appealed and the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Washington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict was contrary to weight of evidence | Evidence (DNA, video, victim testimony) supported conviction; credibility matters for jury | Verdict was against weight: DNA explanation plausible, surveillance/height analysis and other testimony undermined identification | Denied; appellate court defers to jury credibility findings and trial court discretion; not contrary to manifest weight |
| Whether prosecution withheld exculpatory/third-party information (Brady) | No undisclosed, material evidence that prejudiced defense shown; defendant failed to show suppression, materiality, or prejudice | An investigator told defense counsel of other similar suspects; nondisclosure prejudiced ability to present third-party culpability | Denied; defendant did not demonstrate late suppression, materiality, or prejudice and failed to develop record or seek relief at trial |
| Whether prosecutor misstated evidence in rebuttal (prostitution comment) | Prosecutor’s argument fairly attacked defendant’s prostitution theory and urged common-sense inferences from evidence | Prosecutor improperly said “no evidence” victim was a prostitute and implied defendant guilty; that mischaracterization and comment on DNA credibility were improper | Denied; context showed prosecutor critiqued defendant’s testimony, did not state facts outside evidence or personal belief, and argument was fair inference from evidence |
| Whether prosecutor improperly expressed opinion on guilt/credibility | Prosecutor may argue inferences from evidence; cannot state personal belief or facts not in evidence | Rebuttal statements improperly expressed opinion of guilt and attacked credibility beyond evidence | Denied; statements were within permissible comment on evidence and reasonable inferences; not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (suppression of favorable material evidence violates due process)
- State v. Smith, 313 Conn. 325 (Conn. 2014) (standard of review for new-trial motion and trial judge’s discretion)
- State v. Hammond, 221 Conn. 264 (Conn. 1992) (verdict may be set aside if contrary to indisputable physical facts or so against weight that jury failed to apply law)
- State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604 (Conn. 2013) (limits on prosecutor expressing personal opinion; permissible comment on evidence and inferences)
- State v. Ciullo, 314 Conn. 28 (Conn. 2014) (context required in evaluating prosecutorial remarks; avoid inferring most damaging meaning)