Defense says trial court unduly limited closing argument, raising right‑to‑counsel claim

Counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court improperly curtailed defense counsel's closing argument by sustaining an objection that labeled an inference-based summary as a 'personal opinion.' Petrone told the panel that defense counsel had summarized evidence and urged the jury to draw inferences about a witness's credibility, saying the statements were "an inference based on the evidence" rather than an unsourced personal opinion.

The prosecutor countered that defense counsel was able to present a theory of the case and that the single sustained objection (to use of the word "I") was a form objection to argument form rather than a substantive bar on making evidence-based inferences. The state asked the panel to affirm the trial court, arguing the ruling did not prevent counsel from presenting critical elements of the defense.