# State v. Kendall

> Connecticut Appellate Court · September 14, 2010 · 123 Conn. App. 625

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773833

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Connecticut v. Michael Kendall
- **Court:** Connecticut Appellate Court
- **Decided:** September 14, 2010
- **Citations:** 123 Conn. App. 625; 2 A.3d 990; 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 415
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flynn
- **Judges:** Beach, Flynn, Schaller
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773833

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding it proper for prosecutor, following defendant’s closing argument, to highlight dif- ference between state’s version and defendant’s version of facts and inferences properly drawn from those facts
- noting assistant public defender

## Opinion text

FLYNN, J.,
concurring. I concur in the result reached and that the defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. There was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. TMs evidence is pointed out in the majority opinion and needs no repetition. Its weight under the Williams factors militates against reversal. See State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563-67 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
I disagree with part I of the opinion holding that there was no impropriety. It has been said that nothing *674 exceeds like excess. Several of the prosecutor’s questions were excessively sarcastic. Injection of sarcasm into a cross-examination is improper. State v. Spiegelmann, 81 Conn. App. 441,457 , 840 A.2d 69 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 921 , 846 A.2d 882 (2004). The question before the jury was whether the defendant shot his wife and two daughters and then burned their bodies, intentionally causing their death. Despite the horror of the defendant’s crime, the jury’s deliberation could have been better able to proceed without the mocking, caustic tone inviting ridicule that the cross-examination of the defendant took.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773833. Public record. Not legal advice.