State v. Elmer G.

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Courtney G.

    339 Conn. 328 (Conn. 2021)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding that it was not improper for prosecutor to comment on witness’ testimonial demeanor and to argue inferences to be drawn from facts in evidence

    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Elmer G. , 333 Conn. 176, 205, 214 A.3d 852 (2019). Furthermore, as we have discussed, a witness’ demeanor while testifying is "visible to the jurors" and "properly before them as evidence of ... credibility."

  2. State v. Lamantia

    336 Conn. 747 (Conn. 2020)   Cited 9 times
    Summarizing history and circumstances of 2015 amendment to § 53a-155

    " (Citation omitted.) State v. Elmer G. , 333 Conn. 176, 183, 214 A.3d 852 (2019). "[W]e do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

  3. State v. Jose R.

    338 Conn. 375 (Conn. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    We consider this to be the most reasonable interpretation of the comments in the overall context of the facts as marshaled by the prosecutor in his closing argument. See State v. Elmer G. , 333 Conn. 176, 194–95, 214 A.3d 852 (2019) ("[i]f a prosecutor's remark is ambiguous, this court should not lightly infer that it is improper" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Rivera , supra, 169 Conn. App. at 353–54, 150 A.3d 244 (prosecutor's remark " ‘[d]oes somebody have a stake when they sit in that chair and testify for you’ " was ambiguous and, therefore, could be construed to refer to "the stake that the defendant specifically has when he sits in a chair at the police station and gives his version of events," rather than to defendant's failure to testify). Our concerns are assuaged, however, upon consideration of the context in which the prosecutor's comment was made.

  4. Valentine v. Comm'r of Corr.

    219 Conn. App. 276 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 4 times
    Closing arguments

    The following general principles guide our analysis of this claim. Although it is improper for a prosecutor to convey his personal views regarding the credibility of witnesses; see, e.g., State v. Elmer G ., 176 Conn. App. 343, 375–76, 170 A.3d 749 (2017), aff'd, 333 Conn. 176, 214 A.3d 852 (2019) ; it is also well established that "a prosecutor may argue about the credibility of witnesses, as long as [the prosecutor's] assertions are based on evidence presented at trial and reasonable inferences that jurors might draw therefrom. ...

  5. State v. Hargett

    196 Conn. App. 228 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Elmer G. , 176 Conn. App. 343, 363, 170 A.3d 749 (2017), aff'd, 333 Conn. 176, 214 A.3d 852 (2019). "Whether that impropriety was harmful and thus caused or contributed to a due process violation involves a separate and distinct inquiry."

  6. State v. Pernell

    194 Conn. App. 394 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Elmer G. , 176 Conn. App. 343, 376, 170 A.3d 749 (2017), aff'd, 333 Conn. 176, 214 A.3d 852 (2019). Furthermore, the declaratory statements contained within this challenged remark—"Seems awful calm when he was interviewed by the police hours later.