Opinion ID: 2326772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Reference to a Monument in Washington and the Display of a Badge

Text: The defendant next challenges the propriety of the following rebuttal argument by the state's attorney: There's a monument in Washington that's set up that has about [14,000] or 15,000 plaques on it of officers who died in the line of duty. They died to protect us and they died to honor this: their badge. [The state's attorney apparently held up a badge at this point.] What those officers did that night is a disgrace. It's a disgrace to their badge. Don't let them get away with it. The defendant contends that the state's attorney's reference to the monument in Washington and his use of the badge, neither of which was based in the evidence, was outside the record. The defendant also contends that the state's attorney improperly appealed to the jurors' emotions in referring to the monument and using the badge. It is well established that a prosecutor, in fulfilling his duties, must confine himself to the evidence in the record. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Furthermore, [a] prosecutor may not appeal to the emotions, passions and prejudices of the jurors.... We have stated that such appeals should be avoided because they have the effect of diverting the [jurors'] attention from their duty to decide the case on the evidence.... When the prosecutor appeals to emotions, he invites the jury to decide the case, not according to a rational appraisal of the evidence, but on the basis of powerful and irrelevant factors which are likely to skew that appraisal.... No trial  civil or criminal  should be decided upon the basis of the jurors' emotions. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rizzo, supra, 266 Conn. at 255, 833 A.2d 363. We agree with the defendant that the state's attorney's reference to the monument in Washington honoring thousands of deceased police officers exceeded the bounds of permissible closing argument. The state's attorney improperly appealed to the passions of the jury and injected an extraneous matter into the trial. The monument bore no arguable relation to any issue in the case, and the state's attorney's invocation of the memory of slain police officers created a risk of diverting the jury's attention away from the issues before it. In light of the fact that the case involved alleged misconduct by a police officer, the state's attorney's reference to the monument and to the deceased officers it memorializes improperly appealed to the jurors' emotions and likely distracted the jury from its duty of deciding the case objectively and dispassionately. We next address the state's attorney's display of the badge. As we have explained; see part IV A 1 of this opinion; it is not per se impermissible to use visual aids during closing arguments. Rather, the propriety of such conduct must be determined in light of the particular circumstances. Because it is common knowledge that police officers wear or carry badges, it is not necessarily improper for a prosecutor to display a badge symbolically, for the purpose of underscoring the fact that such officers are sworn to uphold the law. The state's attorney, however, did not display the badge with reference to the duties and responsibilities of the defendant or, for that matter, any other officer involved in this case. Rather, he displayed the badge to emphasize that the officers memorialized by the monument in Washington had died in the course of upholding the law. In view of the fact that the state's attorney's comments regarding the monument were improper, so, too, was his use of the badge in connection with those comments. The defendant also claims, as the Appellate Court concluded; see State v. Ancona, supra, 69 Conn.App. at 39-40, 797 A.2d 1138; that the foregoing argument by the state's attorney, coupled with his admonition to the jury not to let them get away with it, and his assertion that the conduct of the defendant and several other officers was a disgrace to their badge, constituted an improper attempt by the state's attorney to transform the trial from a case about assault and fabrication of evidence into an opportunity for the jurors, as the community's representatives, to send a message to all police officers. Id., at 38-39, 797 A.2d 1138. We agree that the argument was improper because, when considered as a whole, it reasonably might have been construed by the jury as suggesting that a verdict of not guilty would dishonor the memory of police officers who had lost their lives in the line of duty. To the extent that the state's attorney's argument may have conveyed that message, the argument was an inappropriate appeal to emotion. [29] 3