maxim defense in Connecticut

2018To the contrary, we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was [improper] in light of the record of the case at the time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Maner , 147 Conn. App. 761 , 782, 83 A.3d 1182 , cert. denied, 311 Conn. 935 , 88 A.3d 550 (2014).

2018To the contrary, we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was [improper] in light of the record of the case at the time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Maner , 147 Conn. App. 761 , 782, 83 A.3d 1182 , cert. denied, 311 Conn. 935 , 88 A.3d 550 (2014).

2015We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial impro- prieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 483 .

2015The trial court gave the general instruction to the jury not to consider the arguments of counsel as evidence. ‘‘In the absence of a showing that the jury failed or declined to follow the court’s instructions, we presume that it heeded them.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Id., 485 .

2014To the contrary, we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was [improper] in light of the record of the case at the time.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749 , 762, 51 A.3d 988 (2012). 9 The defendant then proceeds to analyze the Williams factors; State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987); in an attempt to demonstrate how he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial.

2014To the contrary, we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was [improper] in light of the record of the case at the time.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749 , 762, 51 A.3d 988 (2012). 9 The defendant then proceeds to analyze the Williams factors; State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987); in an attempt to demonstrate how he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial.

2025State 5 ‘‘[U]nder settled law, a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecu- torial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 14 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 State v. Henry B.-A. v. Ross, 151 Conn. App. 687 , 694–95, 95 A.3d 1208 , cert. denied, 314 Conn. 926 , 101 A.3d 271 (2014).’’ (Footnote in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Maurice B., supra, 228 Conn. A

2025State 5 ‘‘[U]nder settled law, a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecu- torial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 14 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 State v. Henry B.-A. v. Ross, 151 Conn. App. 687 , 694–95, 95 A.3d 1208 , cert. denied, 314 Conn. 926 , 101 A.3d 271 (2014).’’ (Footnote in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Maurice B., supra, 228 Conn. A

2025To the contrary, we con- tinue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the [alleged impro- prieties at the time they occurred] suggests that defense counsel did not believe that [they were] [improper] in light of the record of the case at the time.’’18 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Maurice B., 228 Conn. App. 720 , 726–29, 324 A.3d 850 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 929 , 326 A.3d 249 (2024).

2025To the contrary, we con- tinue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the [alleged impro- prieties at the time they occurred] suggests that defense counsel did not believe that [they were] [improper] in light of the record of the case at the time.’’18 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Maurice B., 228 Conn. App. 720, 726–29, 324 A.3d 850, cert. denied, 350 Conn. 929, 326 A.3d 249 (2024).

2020If counsel did not believe that the argument was improper at the time, it is difficult for this court, on review, to reach a contrary conclusion.’’ Id., 121–22. ‘‘We empha- size the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitt

2020If counsel did not believe that the argument was improper at the time, it is difficult for this court, on review, to reach a contrary conclusion.’’ Id., 121–22. ‘‘We empha- size the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitt

2017To the contrary, we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was [improper] in light of the record of the case at the time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Barry A. , 145 Conn.App. 582 , 597, 76 A.3d 211 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 936 , 79 A.3d 889 (2013).

2017To the contrary, we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was [improper] in light of the record of the case at the time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Barry A. , 145 Conn.App. 582 , 597, 76 A.3d 211 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 936 , 79 A.3d 889 (2013).

2013The issue is whether the prosecutor’s conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 571 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004). “[T]he burden is on the defendant to show, not only that the remarks were improper, but also that, considered in light of the whole trial, the improprieties were so egregious that they amounted to a denial of due process.” State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 563 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). “[I]n analyzing claims of prosecutorial [impropriety], we engage in a two st

2013The issue is whether the prosecutor’s conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 571 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004). “[T]he burden is on the defendant to show, not only that the remarks were improper, but also that, considered in light of the whole trial, the improprieties were so egregious that they amounted to a denial of due process.” State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 563 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). “[I]n analyzing claims of prosecutorial [impropriety], we engage in a two st

2011We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's argument [or cross-examination questions] when [they were] made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that [they were] unfair in light of the record of the case at the time." *70 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ceballos, supra, 266 Conn. at 414 , 832 A.2d 14 .

2011We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's argument [or cross-examination questions] when [they were] made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that [they were] unfair in light of the record of the case at the time." *70 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ceballos, supra, 266 Conn. at 414 , 832 A.2d 14 .

2009In State v. Ritrovato, 280 Conn. 36 , 905 A.2d 1079 (2006), the court commented: “We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time. . . .

2009In State v. Ritrovato, 280 Conn. 36 , 905 A.2d 1079 (2006), the court commented: “We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time. . . .

2007Accordingly, we emphasize that counsel’s failure to object at trial, while not by itself fatal to a defendant’s claim, frequently will indicate on appellate review that the challenged comments do not rise to the magnitude of constitutional error.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lopez, 280 Conn. 779, 798-800 , 911 A.2d 1099 (2007).

2007Accordingly, we emphasize that counsel’s failure to object at trial, while not by itself fatal to a defendant’s claim, frequently will indicate on appellate review that the challenged comments do not rise to the magnitude of constitutional error.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lopez, 280 Conn. 779, 798-800 , 911 A.2d 1099 (2007).