In response, defense counsel preliminarily argued that such evidence was irrelevant, not probative of any issues in the case, prejudicial, and might "play on certain biases that people hold, implicit biases as well." The court informed the parties that it would entertain argument on the issue the following morning, and the prosecutor stated his intent to rely on State v. Perry , 58 Conn. App. 65, 68โ69, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000), in support of the admissibility of Ricciuti's testimony. The next morning, defense counsel did not argue that the evidence was irrelevant.
After the first day of evidence, the prosecutor informed the trial court that he intended to call David Ricciuti, a programs and services coordinator in the department, to testify that the defendant had no reportable wages in 2016 and 2017. The prosecutor relied on State v. Perry , 58 Conn. App. 65, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000), which held that "[f]inancial condition and employment status may be relevant to a defendant's motive to commit a crime and, thus, are admissible on purely nonconstitutional evidentiary grounds." Id., at 69, 751 A.2d 843. Because we resolve this appeal on the ground that any error in admitting evidence of the defendant's lack of reportable wages was harmless, we express no opinion on whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that "the trial court acted within its discretion when it admitted Ricciuti's testimony concerning the defendant's lack of reportable wages" in 2016 and 2017.
Accordingly, this claim is deemed abandoned. See State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71 n. 4, 751 A.2d 843 (2000) (inadequately briefed claim deemed abandoned). Additionally, the defendant did not request review of this claim under the plain error doctrine.
Decided September 27, 2000 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 58 Conn. App. 65 (AC 18153), is denied. Richard Hustad Miller, special public defender, in support of the petition.
As a preliminary matter, we note that "[w]e previously have held that questions designed to show that a defendant is poor and, thus, might have a motive to commit a crime are not of constitutional magnitude and, accordingly, do not satisfy the second prong of Golding." State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 68, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). Such is the case here.
There is a distinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense. State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38, 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant's theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927, 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72, 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000).The defendant argues that the challenged remarks were of the same nature as remarks that this court held to be improper in State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 400-406, 819 A.2d 884, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912, 826 A.2d 1157 (2003), and State v. Brown, 71 Conn. App. 121, 127-32, 800 A.2d 674, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 940, 808 A.2d 1133 (2002).
Nevertheless, "review under the plain error doctrine is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 68, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). "The core of the plain error doctrine . . . concerns whether a defendant can prevail on the merits of a claim, not simply whether the claim can be reviewed."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 69, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). We now review the closing argument to determine whether a pattern of misconduct existed or whether the conduct was so egregious as to infringe on the defendant's right to a fair trial.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 69, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). We now review the closing arguments to determine if a pattern of misconduct existed or if the conduct was so egregious as to infringe on the defendant's right to a fair trial.
We conclude that when read in context, the challenged remarks fell within the bounds of proper commentary on the defendant's theory of defense. See State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). Accordingly, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the comments were improper or that they deprived him of a fair trial.