State v. Zillo, 124 Conn. App. 690

Defendant Geovanny Zillo was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of sexual assault in the first degree under § 53a-70(a)(2).
He was also convicted of one count of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree under §§ 53a-49(a)(2), and four counts of risk of injury to a child under §§ 53-21(1) and (2).
The victim was eleven years old and part of a Chinese immigrant family that operated a local restaurant; the family had previously welcomed the defendant but later told him not to return.
After being excluded from the restaurant, Zillo followed the victim, took her to a house and a wooded area where he assaulted her, and also took her to a McDonald’s; he coerced her to remove clothing and engaged in multiple sexual acts.
In 2005–2006, Zillo created a MySpace account as AnnaLuckyOne, contacted the victim claiming to be a young Asian girl, and later contacted her again via the account years after the assaults; the State charged eight counts and the jury found him guilty on all eight.
The trial court sentenced him to a total term of 30 years imprisonment, execution suspended after 15 years, followed by 15 years of probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting 2188 photos of adult Asian women was improper under relevance rules	State contends photos show defendant’s obsession with Asian females supporting victim testimony	Photos were largely unrelated to the charged offenses and unduly prejudicial	Abuse of discretion to admit; however harmless error under the circumstances
Whether prosecutorial improprieties in closing violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial	Prosecutor vouched for credibility and inflamed jury emotions	Instructions on vouching were insufficient; remarks were misconduct	No reversible error; comments not improper or prejudicial in context

State v. Martinez, 295 Conn. 758 (2010) (standard for abuse of discretion and evidentiary rulings; deference to trial courts)
State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618 (2007) (admission of photographs harmful only if prejudicial impact substantial)
State v. Long, 293 Conn. 31 (2009) (prosecutorial impropriety analysis; required showing substantial prejudice)
State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 (2007) (prosecutor may comment on witness motives based on ascertainable motives)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (2006) (proper to argue witness motives to lie within limits)
State v. Bermudez, 274 Conn. 581 (2005) (witness motive to lie permissible in argument)
State v. Ancona, 270 Conn. 568 (2004) (prosecutor may explain motive to lie; not improper opinion)
State v. Burton, 258 Conn. 153 (2001) (prosecutor’s argument on motive to lie permissible)