prompt cautionary instruction in Connecticut

2017That is improper argument." "[W]e have previously recognized that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ceballos , 266 Conn. 364 , 413, 832 A.2d 14 (2003).

2017That is improper argument." "[W]e have previously recognized that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ceballos , 266 Conn. 364 , 413, 832 A.2d 14 (2003).

2007Thus, despite the improper nature of the prosecutor’s remarks and his repeated attempts to elicit testimony on the use of a Sirchie kit after the court had ruled that such additional testimony would not be admitted, we conclude that the impropriety did not relate directly to the ultimate issue in this case. 4 Finally, we examine the sufficiency of the curative measures taken by the court. “[W]e have previously recognized that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation mar

2007Thus, despite the improper nature of the prosecutor’s remarks and his repeated attempts to elicit testimony on the use of a Sirchie kit after the court had ruled that such additional testimony would not be admitted, we conclude that the impropriety did not relate directly to the ultimate issue in this case. 4 Finally, we examine the sufficiency of the curative measures taken by the court. “[W]e have previously recognized that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation mar

2008With respect to the factor of curative measures, the court, immediately following the victim’s testimony, instructed the jury that the defendant had not been charged with sexual assault. “[W]e have recognized that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 420 .

2008With respect to the factor of curative measures, the court, immediately following the victim's testimony, instructed the jury that the defendant had not been charged with sexual assault. "[W]e have recognized that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 420 , 844 A.2d 810 .

2005Our Supreme Court has “often held that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reid, 193 Conn. 646, 666 , 480 A.2d 463 (1984).

2005Our Supreme Court has “often held that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reid, 193 Conn. 646, 666 , 480 A.2d 463 (1984).

2003The state claims in response that the jury is presumed to have followed these instructions, and with no evidence to the contrary, any harm to the defendant therefore was obviated. “[W]e have previously recognized that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547, 569 , 710 A.2d 1348 (1998); State v. Cruz, 212 Conn. 351, 365 , 562 A.2d 1071 (1989); State v. Ubaldi, supra, 190 Conn. 563 .

2003The state claims in response that the jury is presumed to have followed these instructions, and with no evidence to the contrary, any harm to the defendant therefore was obviated. “[W]e have previously recognized that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547, 569 , 710 A.2d 1348 (1998); State v. Cruz, 212 Conn. 351, 365 , 562 A.2d 1071 (1989); State v. Ubaldi, supra, 190 Conn. 563 .

2001See State v. Nowakowski, 188 Conn. 620, 624 , 452 A.2d 938 (1982); State v. Piskorski, [ 177 Conn. 677, 720-21 , 419 A.2d 866 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S. Ct. 283 , 62 L.

2001See State v. Nowakowski, 188 Conn. 620, 624 , 452 A.2d 938 (1982); State v. Piskorski, [ 177 Conn. 677, 720-21 , 419 A.2d 866 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S. Ct. 283 , 62 L.

2001See State v. Nowakowski, 188 Conn. 620, 624 , 452 A.2d 938 (1982); State v. Piskorski, [ 177 Conn. 677, 720-21 , 419 A.2d 866 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S. Ct. 283 , 62 L.

1995See State v. Nowakowski, 188 Conn. 620, 624 , 452 A.2d 938 (1982); State v. Piskorski, [ 177 Conn. 677, 720-21 , 419 A.2d 866 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S. Ct. 283 , 62 L.

2001See State v. Nowakowski, 188 Conn. 620, 624 , 452 A.2d 938 (1982); State v. Piskorski, [ 177 Conn. 677, 720-21 , 419 A.2d 866 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S. Ct. 283 , 62 L.

2001See State v. Nowakowski, 188 Conn. 620, 624 , 452 A.2d 938 (1982); State v. Piskorski, [ 177 Conn. 677, 720-21 , 419 A.2d 866 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S. Ct. 283 , 62 L.

2018"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 omitted.) State v. Santiago , 269 Conn. 726 , 762, 850 A.2d 199 (2004).

2018"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 omitted.) State v. Santiago , 269 Conn. 726 , 762, 850 A.2d 199 (2004).

2007Additionally, "[i]n the absence of an indication to the contrary, the jury is presumed to have followed [the trial court's] curative instructions." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Whipper, supra, 258 Conn. at 258 , 780 A.2d 53 .

2007Additionally, "[i]n the absence of an indication to the contrary, the jury is presumed to have followed [the trial court's] curative instructions." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Whipper, supra, 258 Conn. at 258 , 780 A.2d 53 .

2004With respect to curative instructions that are given in response to an alleged impropriety, we repeatedly have held that “the jury is presumed to follow the court’s curative instructions in the absence of some indication to the contrary”; State v. Grenier, 257 Conn. 797, 810 , 778 A.2d 159 (2001); State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526, 533 , 737 A.2d 392 (1999) (“[i]t is to be presumed that the jury followed the court’s [curative] instructions unless the contrary appears” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677, 694 , 631 A.2d 271 (1993) (“[j]urors are presumed to follow

2004With respect to curative instructions that are given in response to an alleged impropriety, we repeatedly have held that “the jury is presumed to follow the court’s curative instructions in the absence of some indication to the contrary”; State v. Grenier, 257 Conn. 797, 810 , 778 A.2d 159 (2001); State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526, 533 , 737 A.2d 392 (1999) (“[i]t is to be presumed that the jury followed the court’s [curative] instructions unless the contrary appears” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677, 694 , 631 A.2d 271 (1993) (“[j]urors are presumed to follow

2004With respect to curative instructions that are given in response to an alleged impropriety, we repeatedly have held that “the jury is presumed to follow the court’s curative instructions in the absence of some indication to the contrary”; State v. Grenier, 257 Conn. 797, 810 , 778 A.2d 159 (2001); State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526, 533 , 737 A.2d 392 (1999) (“[i]t is to be presumed that the jury followed the court’s [curative] instructions unless the contrary appears” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677, 694 , 631 A.2d 271 (1993) (“[j]urors are presumed to follow

2004With respect to curative instructions that are given in response to an alleged impropriety, we repeatedly have held that “the jury is presumed to follow the court’s curative instructions in the absence of some indication to the contrary”; State v. Grenier, 257 Conn. 797, 810 , 778 A.2d 159 (2001); State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526, 533 , 737 A.2d 392 (1999) (“[i]t is to be presumed that the jury followed the court’s [curative] instructions unless the contrary appears” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677, 694 , 631 A.2d 271 (1993) (“[j]urors are presumed to follow

2004With respect to curative instructions that are given in response to an alleged impropriety, we repeatedly have held that “the jury is presumed to follow the court’s curative instructions in the absence of some indication to the contrary”; State v. Grenier, 257 Conn. 797, 810 , 778 A.2d 159 (2001); State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526, 533 , 737 A.2d 392 (1999) (“[i]t is to be presumed that the jury followed the court’s [curative] instructions unless the contrary appears” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677, 694 , 631 A.2d 271 (1993) (“[j]urors are presumed to follow

2004With respect to curative instructions that are given in response to an alleged impropriety, we repeatedly have held that “the jury is presumed to follow the court’s curative instructions in the absence of some indication to the contrary”; State v. Grenier, 257 Conn. 797, 810 , 778 A.2d 159 (2001); State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526, 533 , 737 A.2d 392 (1999) (“[i]t is to be presumed that the jury followed the court’s [curative] instructions unless the contrary appears” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677, 694 , 631 A.2d 271 (1993) (“[j]urors are presumed to follow

2001The jury will disregard it. ” We often have held that “a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 52 Conn. App. 643, 655 , 727 A.2d 780 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 752 , 748 A.2d 872 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 876 , 121 S. Ct. 182 , 148 L.

2001The jury will disregard it. ” We often have held that “a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 52 Conn. App. 643, 655 , 727 A.2d 780 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 752 , 748 A.2d 872 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 876 , 121 S. Ct. 182 , 148 L.

2001The jury will disregard it. ” We often have held that “a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 52 Conn. App. 643, 655 , 727 A.2d 780 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 752 , 748 A.2d 872 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 876 , 121 S. Ct. 182 , 148 L.

2001The jury will disregard it. ” We often have held that “a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 52 Conn. App. 643, 655 , 727 A.2d 780 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 752 , 748 A.2d 872 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 876 , 121 S. Ct. 182 , 148 L.

2001The jury will disregard it. ” We often have held that “a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 52 Conn. App. 643, 655 , 727 A.2d 780 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 752 , 748 A.2d 872 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 876 , 121 S. Ct. 182 , 148 L.

2001The jury will disregard it. ” We often have held that “a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 52 Conn. App. 643, 655 , 727 A.2d 780 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 752 , 748 A.2d 872 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 876 , 121 S. Ct. 182 , 148 L.

1999“We have often held that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” State v. Sherman, 38 Conn. App. 371, 386 , 662 A.2d 767 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 905 , 665 A.2d 905 (1995).

1999“We have often held that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” State v. Sherman, 38 Conn. App. 371, 386 , 662 A.2d 767 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 905 , 665 A.2d 905 (1995).

1999“We have often held that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” State v. Sherman, 38 Conn. App. 371, 386 , 662 A.2d 767 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 905 , 665 A.2d 905 (1995).

1999“We have often held that a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding improper prosecutorial remarks obviates any possible harm to the defendant.” State v. Sherman, 38 Conn. App. 371, 386 , 662 A.2d 767 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 905 , 665 A.2d 905 (1995).

1989Id.; State v. Fernandez, 198 Conn. 1, 17 , 501 A.2d 1195 (1985); State v. Reid, 193 Conn. 646 , 480 A.2d 463 (1984); State v. Ubaldi, supra, 563 .

1989Id.; State v. Fernandez, 198 Conn. 1, 17 , 501 A.2d 1195 (1985); State v. Reid, 193 Conn. 646 , 480 A.2d 463 (1984); State v. Ubaldi, supra, 563 .