impropriety requires a two step process on appellate review. Id., 383. “The two steps are separate and distinct: (1) whether [impropriety] occurred in the first instance; and (2) whether the [impropriety] deprived a defendant of his due process right to a fair trial. . . . [P]rosecutorial [impropriety] of a constitutional magnitude can occur in the course of closing arguments.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 383-84. Our first consideration is whether the prosecutor’s statement during closing arguments was improper. See generally State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 529 A.2d 653 (1987). It is not improper for a prosecutor to refer to the fact that a defendant has failed to explain the state’s physical evidence. State v. D’Haity, supra, 99 Conn. App. 385 (<HOLDING>). When viewed in the context of a closing
holding it was improper for prosecutor to inject personal opinion in statements to the jury in closing argument holding that it was not improper during closing argument for prosecutor to address fact that defendant did not explain abrasions found on victims shoulder and presence of semen on victims underwear holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments holding that it was harmless error when the prosecutor focused on a single incident in closing argument