State v. John (2007)

See State v. John B., 102 Conn. App. 453, 465 , 925 A.2d 1235 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 906 , 931 A.2d 267 (2007).

See, e.g., State v. John B., 102 Conn. App. 453 , 475–76, 925 A.2d 1235 (date alleged in information, May 8, 2001, was reasonably near date that state later argued, at trial, was when charged offenses occurred, May 9, 2001), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 906 , 931 A.2d 267 (2007); State v. Carneiro, 76 Conn. App. 425 , 437–38, 820 A.2d 1053 (court determined that date in late April or early May, 1998, fell within charged time frame in information, which alleged that sexual assault…

See State v. Williams, 102 Conn. App. 168 , 176, 926 A.2d 7 ("appellate courts of this state have held that evidentiary violations of a court order should be reviewed as prosecutorial [impropriety], not evidentiary errors"), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 906 , 931 A.2d 267 (2007).

Moreover, absent a factual record revealing an abuse of that discretion, the court's failure to allow new counsel is not reversible error." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Drakeford, 202 Conn. 75 , 83, 519 A.2d 1194 (1987) ; see also State v. Williams, 102 Conn.App. 168 , 205, 926 A.2d 7 (trial court has broad discretion in determining whether circumstances warrant appointment of new counsel or dismissal of existing counsel), cert. denied, 284…

See State v. John B., 102 Conn. App. 453 , 466–68, 925 A.2d 1235 (impropriety not severe despite being based on facts not in evidence), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 906 , 931 A.2d 267 (2007); cf. State v. Maguire, 310 Conn. 535 , 561, 78 A.3d 828 (2013) (improprieties severe where prosecutor questioned veracity of defense counsel and mischarac- terized defendant’s defense theory); State v. A. M., 156 Conn. App. 138 , 150–51, 111 A.3d 974 (2015) (impropri- ety severe where prosecu…

See State v. Williams, 102 Conn. App. 168, 176 , 926 A.2d 7 (“appellate courts of this state have held that evidentiary violations of a court order should be reviewed as prosecutorial [impropriety], not evidentiary errors”), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 906 , 931 A.2d 267 (2007).

Although the prosecutor’s emphasis on that point could have been delivered more succinctly, we recognize that “[t]he occasional use of rhetorical devices is simply fair argument.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiavo, 93 Conn. App. 290, 304 , 888 A.2d 1115 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 923 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006); see also State v. Williams, 102 Conn. App. 168, 190-93 , 926 A.2d 7 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 906 , 931 A.2d 267 (2007); State v. Chasse, 51 Conn. App. 3…

See MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726, 757 , 183 A.3d 611 (2018) (‘‘[w]e do not reach the merits of [a] claim [where] the defendant has not briefed how he was harmed by the allegedly improper evidentiary ruling’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); see also State v. LaVallee, 101 Conn. App. 573, 579 , 922 A.2d 316 (‘‘[a]bsent any analysis as to how the [evidentiary] ruling harmed [the defendant], we are unable to conclude that the exclusion of this evidence was an …

We need not discuss the merits of this claim because even if we were to assume, without deciding, that the court improperly admitted the testimony of S.R. and E.H. into evidence, the defendant has failed to demon- strate how this ruling was harmful.9 ‘‘Absent any analy- sis as to how the ruling harmed the defendant, we are unable to conclude that the admission of this evidence was an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238, 249 , 941 A.2d 989 , cert. den…