Curative Instructions Not A “Cure-All” (Connecticut)

State v. Nance, 119 Conn. App. 392, 406 (Conn. App. Ct., AC 30047, 2010) discussed the efficacy of curative instructions in the following passage:

“We are mindful that curative instructions are not a cure-all for every improper event that may transpire during a trial. See State v. Binet, 192 Conn. 618, 632-33, 473 A.2d 1200 (1984). The likely effectiveness of such a remedy is dependent on the magnitude of the impropriety to which it is directed. Here, the nature of the improper question asked in this case cannot be said to have had a likely significant impact on the defendant's credibility or any aspect of her defense. In light of the facts that the court immediately addressed the matter with proper curative instructions, the inquiry occurred only once and the state did not present evidence of a prior charge, we are not persuaded that the improper inquiry tainted the proceedings with such a degree of prejudice that the defendant was not afforded a fair trial. Accordingly, we do not conclude that the court's denial of the motion for a mistrial reflected an abuse of the court's discretion.”

For subscription based briefing and sample instructions on this and related issues see:

Forecite National™
4.3.2 - Cautionary And Limiting Instructions: Requests And Objections
272.5 - Summation/Closing Argument: Prosecutor Misconduct -- Curative Instructions