*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. GILBERTO PATRICIO CARRILLO (AC 43529) Bright, C. J., and Clark and Eveleigh, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who had been convicted of the crimes of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court, claiming that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial as a result of certain improprieties the prosecutor committed during closing and rebuttal arguments to the jury. The defendant had engaged in various incidents of sexual behavior with his girlfriend’s ten year old daughter who, thereafter, underwent a forensic interview by a single social worker. The defendant, who did not object at trial to any of the alleged improprieties, claimed that the prosecutor argued to the jury facts that were not in evidence, vouched for the credibility of the state’s witnesses, appealed to the emotions of the jurors, and impugned the integrity and institutional role of defense counsel. Held: 1. The prosecutor made certain comments to the jury that were not supported by the record and were unconnected to the issues in the case: a. Although it was not improper for the prosecutor to state to the jury that the procedure of having one social worker conduct a forensic interview of the minor child was designed to achieve the most unbiased and reliable interview of the child and that a child who talks with a medical provider will provide accurate information, the prosecutor improperly stated that the child could not have a point of reference as to certain sexual experi- ences due to her age, as that comment was not supported by the evidence and concerned issues that were for the jury to determine; moreover, the prosecutor’s bald assertion that fathers do not sexually abuse their children amounted to improper, unsworn evidence that was unsupported by the record, as it did not ask …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals