STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ROBERT PARRIS, SC 20837

Judicial District of New Haven

Criminal; Whether Cumulative Effect of State's Arguments Misstating the Law, Denigrating Extreme Emotional Disturbance Defense, and Inviting Jury to Engage in Nullification Violated Right to Fair Trial; Whether Defendant Was Prejudiced by Admission of Improper Incendiary Evidence Regarding His Use of Homophobic Language. The defendant confessed to the shooting death of Michael Rosario on December 19, 2019, but asserted the defense of extreme emotional disturbance. The defendant lived next door to Rosario in an apartment in New Haven where Rosario was the superintendent. A fellow tenant, George Arline, claimed that he spoke with the defendant on the morning of the shooting and that the defendant was very upset, showed him a gun, and stated that he intended to kill Rosario. Rosario’s daughter, who lived in the apartment with her father, claimed that the defendant was in an agitated state that day and that he became increasingly more agitated as the day progressed. Around 4:00 p.m., the defendant shot Rosario as Rosario returned to his apartment. The next morning, the defendant turned himself into the police and consented to a taped interview. The defendant claimed that Rosario harassed him due to his sex offender status and sexual preference and that he had made numerous complaints to building management concerning Rosario, which was putting him at risk of losing his apartment that he had secured after more than a decade of being homeless. The defendant also claimed that his stepmother and Rosario were entering his apartment without permission, stealing his mail and threatening to expose a videotape showing him engaged in sexual acts with another man. At trial, the defendant requested that two homophobic slurs he repeatedly used while discussing the videotape in the interview be redacted. The court refused the request, finding that, although the evidence clearly had some prejudicial impact, the defendant's repeated use of the slurs was relevant to his defense. In closing argument, the state argued that the emotional disturbance defense was an excuse that the defendant contrived after the murder to justify what he did and that it was a horrible thing for the defendant to use the defense to explain away killing Rosario. The state drew comparisons between the defendant’s case and a series of hypothetical scenarios, which the state used to demonstrate its view that a reasonable person in everyday society should not get to kill someone because of the pressures of life. The state also questioned why the defendant's response was to shoot Rosario and not certain other specified individuals. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder, criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, and carrying a pistol without a permit. The defendant appealed from his conviction directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the cumulative effect of the state's improper arguments misstating the law, denigrating the extreme emotional disturbance defense, and inviting the jury to engage in nullification violated his right to a fair trial and (2) he suffered prejudice due to the improper admission of incendiary evidence regarding his use of homophobic language.