Opinion
SC 20525
05-31-2022
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. NECTOR MARRERO
Julia K. Conlin, assigned counsel, with whom was Emily Graner Sexton, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant). Sarah Hanna, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Paul J. Ferencek, state's attorney, and Joseph C. Valdes, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Argued March 30, 2022
Procedural History
Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of home invasion, burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the jury before White, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Prescott, Elgo and Sheldon, Js., which affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Julia K. Conlin, assigned counsel, with whom was Emily Graner Sexton, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Sarah Hanna, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Paul J. Ferencek, state's attorney, and Joseph C. Valdes, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Nector Marrero, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his conviction of home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (1), burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (3), and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (1). State v. Marrero, 198 Conn.App. 90, 94, 136, 234 A.3d 1 (2020). On appeal, the defendant contends that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the prosecutor had not engaged in prosecutorial impropriety by using leading questions during his direct examination of a hostile witness.
We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the prosecutor's asking leading questions of a hostile witness during direct examination did not constitute prosecutorial impropriety?" State v. Marrero, 335 Conn. 961, 239 A.3d 1214 (2020).
After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.