State v. Ciullo

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for two counts of first-degree unlawful restraint, concluding that the prosecutor’s challenged remarks either were not improper or, even if improper, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The court applied a two-step analysis separating whether misconduct occurred from whether it denied due process, evaluating the entire trial under the relevant fairness factors. The court rejected a proposed categorical ban on credibility arguments and declined to distinguish between pure-credibility cases and cases involving sharply contested facts.