State v. Sullivan (Dissent)

Summary

The dissent agrees that the prosecutor improperly used inflammatory language, injected personal experience about supposed defense strategies, and distorted the state's burden of proof. It disagrees with the majority's conclusion that the misconduct was harmless, emphasizing that the remarks were uninvited, delivered during rebuttal at the end of a short trial, and targeted the central credibility dispute. The dissent would reverse the Appellate Court's judgment and remand for a new trial.