Opinion
The defendant, Joseph Kelly, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements through the testimony of the victim’s mother, (2) the court improperly admitted constancy of accusation testimony from two witnesses before the victim had testified, (3) the court improperly admitted a letter the victim had written to her mother as constancy of accusation evidence and (4) the state’s prosecutorial improprieties during closing arguments deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In 1993, the victim, A, and her brother, Joe, Jr., *417lived in an apartment in Waterbury with their mother, G, and father, Joe, Sr.1 In the early morning hours of Thanksgiving Day, Joe, Sr., died in an automobile accident. At the time of their father’s death, A was five years old and Joe, Jr., was seven years old. G and her children continued to reside in the Waterbury apartment.
The defendant had been a close friend of Joe, Sr., and G for a number of years. Shortly after Joe, Sr., died, the defendant began to spend more time with the family at the apartment and eventually occupied a room in the basement. G did not work outside of the home for a period of time after her husband’s death. Sometime in 1994 or 1995, when A was about seven years old, G decided to return to employment. The defendant offered to supervise A and Joe, Jr., for an hour or two each weekday, from the time they returned home from school until G returned home from work. That arrangement lasted for almost one year. During those months, A often was alone in the apartment with the defendant, and she claimed that he sexually assaulted her on numerous occasions at that time. She told no one of the abuse.
Sometime in 1995, after A had completed the third grade, G and her family moved from Waterbury to Rhode Island. The defendant left the Waterbury apartment shortly before the move. A testified that all of the sexual assaults took place when she lived in the Waterbury apartment and that she did not see the defendant at any time after the family moved to Rhode Island. G remained friends with the defendant and continued to see him occasionally, the last time being at his wedding several years before the trial.
*418In September, 2003, after watching a movie involving sexual abuse, A decided that she wanted to tell her mother about the defendant’s actions. A wrote G a letter, in which she disclosed that the defendant had sexually abused her seven years earlier, and left it in an envelope on the kitchen table. When G returned home from work that day, she read the letter and discussed its contents with A. G then called the Waterbury police department and made arrangements to meet with Detective Anthony Rickevicius. Rickevicius, who was assigned to the sexual assault unit, met with G and A in October, 2003. As a result of that meeting, an investigation was commenced, and the defendant was arrested and charged with sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child.
On March 23, 2005, the defendant filed a motion in limine requesting that the court limit the admissibility of the letter A wrote to G in September, 2003, by ordering the redaction of any portions that could “ ‘arouse the emotions and sympathies of the jury’ ” in favor of A. On the first day of trial, prior to the testimony of any witness, the court heard argument from counsel as to proposed redactions and granted the defendant’s motion in part. The case was then tried before the jury on March 30 and April 4, 2005.
The jury heard testimony from G, Rickevicius, A and Howard Krieger, an expert in the treatment of sexual abuse victims, who were all witnesses for the state. The defendant called no witnesses of his own, although he cross-examined the state’s witnesses. He submitted a photograph of the Waterbury apartment as his only exhibit. On April 5, 2005, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the crimes charged. The court accepted the verdict and sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of eighteen years incarceration. This appeal followed.
*419I
The defendant first claims that the court improperly admitted hearsay statements of A and Joe, Jr., through the testimony of G on redirect examination. Specifically, the defendant challenges the court’s finding that he “opened the door” to that testimony and argues that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.
After direct examination by the state, G was cross-examined by defense counsel about her family’s relationship with the defendant when he stayed at the Waterbuiy apartment. Two inquiries were made concerning her belief as to the defendant’s trustworthiness during that period of time. At one point, defense counsel asked G: “[The defendant] was a trusted friend, and there was never any, in your observation looking back, any reason for you to think anything unusual ever happened in your household when you weren’t there?” G responded, “No.” Immediately prior to the conclusion of his cross-examination, defense counsel asked G the following question: “Back when [the defendant] was living—well, coming to stay with your family back in the 90s, 93, 94, did you think that [he] would harm your children in any way?” G responded, “No, I didn’t think he would, no.”
The first question the prosecutor asked G on redirect examination was as follows: “[Defense counsel] asked you if back in 1993 to [19]97 you thought . . . the defendant would harm your children, correct? You said no. Knowing what you know now, would your opinion be different?” After G said, “yes,” the prosecutor asked her the reason for that change in opinion. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the testimony would violate the constancy of accusation doctrine. The court responded: “You opened that door.” G then proceeded to explain why her opinion had changed.
*420G testified that Joe, Jr., subsequently told her that the defendant had thrown him into a table and occasionally struck him. G also testified that A, while pointing to her vaginal area, told her that something was wrong “down there.” A made that comment several times during the time that the defendant was staying at the apartment. G testified that A also told her that she wanted to see a psychiatrist. G explained that A never was very specific in her complaints and would not give a clear reason for her requests.
Additionally, in response to the inquiries concerning the change in her opinion about the defendant, G said that there were occasions when she would find five or more pairs of A’s underpants all layered together as if they had been pulled on and taken off as one unit. She indicated that when she found them in A’s bedroom, she assumed that her daughter was concerned about having an accident because she sometimes waited too long to use the bathroom facilities. She was told by A, years later, at the time they were discussing the contents of her letter to G, that she layered her underwear “to make it harder for [the defendant].” For those reasons, G indicated that she would not have left the defendant with her children if she knew then what she knew at the time of trial.
The court gave limiting instructions to the jury in connection with the hearsay statements related by G during her testimony. In fact, the court interrupted G during her testimony and admonished the jury: “You are hearing certain information that relates to a question asked by counsel. The question asked by counsel was has her opinion changed. She is testifying that her opinion has changed and why it has changed, but the underlying facts about why her opinion has changed are not in evidence. She can testify as to why her opinion has changed, but you haven’t heard anyone testify, for example, from her son, that the defendant hit [him]. *421So, this testimony is limited solely for the purposes of her explaining why her opinion has changed, something the defense counsel put at issue. So, I want you to listen to this testimony with that understanding, that these underlying facts are not in evidence, what counsel is exploring as to why her opinion is different.”
The standard of review for the defendant’s challenge to the court’s evidentiary ruling is well settled. “Unless an evidentiary ruling involves a clear misconception of the law, [t]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility ... of evidence. . . . The trial court’s ruling on evidentiary matters will be overturned only upon a showing of a clear abuse of the court’s discretion. . . . We will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling .... Moreover, evidentiary rulings will be overturned on appeal only where there was an abuse of discretion and a showing by the defendant of substantial prejudice or injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 599, 889 A.2d 885, cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924, 895 A.2d 797 (2006).
“Generally, a party who delves into a particular subject during the examination of a witness cannot object if the opposing party later questions the witness on the same subject. . . . The party who initiates discussion on the issue is said to have opened the door to rebuttal by the opposing party. Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . .
“In determining whether otherwise inadmissible evidence should be admitted to rebut evidence offered by an opposing party, the court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only *422to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 599-600.
Here, the state does not challenge the defendant’s claim that the statements of A and Joe, Jr., were hearsay. The state argues that the court properly exercised its discretion in admitting G’s testimony because the defendant elicited her subjective opinion about his capacity for harming her children at the time that he was staying at the apartment. The defendant specifically limited his questioning to the knowledge she had at the time A claimed that the abuse had occurred. The state claims that in order to place that opinion in context, the court properly allowed G to modify her opinion of the defendant by considering additional information that came to her attention years later.
We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hearsay statements of A and Joe, Jr., through G’s testimony on redirect examination. G was allowed to explain why her present opinion of the defendant differed from her past opinion, which had been based on limited information. “[T]here is no reason to limit the right of a party to place in context testimony adduced by an opposing party and, consequently, appellate courts have not done so.” State v. Gonzalez, 272 Conn. 515, 544, 864 A.2d 847 (2005). Moreover, the court gave the jury a limiting instruction and carefully explained the sole purpose for which the testimony could be considered, i.e., the reason why G’s opinion of the defendant had changed. We presume, because nothing indicates otherwise, that the jury followed those instructions. See State v. Senquiz, 68 Conn. App. 571, 579, 793 A.2d 1095, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 923, 797 A.2d 519 (2002).
*423II
The defendant’s next claim is that the court improperly admitted constancy of accusation testimony from G and Rickevicius. Specifically, the defendant argues that their testimony was not admissible under State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc), because G and Rickevicius testified before A testified. This claim is without merit.
The state called G as its first witness. During the direct examination of G, defense counsel objected to a number of questions asked by the state on the ground that the testimony would constitute impermissible constancy evidence. The court overruled two of those objections. The state asked G what she did after she discussed the contents of the September, 2003 letter with A. After defense counsel’s objection was overruled, G testified that she telephoned the Waterbuiy police department. Another line of inquiry by the state, objected to by defense counsel and overruled by the court, concerned G’s observations when she cleaned A’s bedroom during the period of time that the defendant was staying at the apartment. G was permitted to testify that she picked up A’s clothing from the floor and noticed several pairs of underpants layered together, indicating that they had been put on or taken off as one unit.2
The state called Rickevicius as its next witness. Rickevicius testified that he met with G and A in October, 2003. He indicated that the purpose of the meeting was “[t]o ascertain the complaint and launch an investigation.” Without discussing the contents of A’s complaint, Rickevicius stated that he took a statement from A and *424attempted to corroborate the information contained in that statement. Following the meeting, he attempted to locate the defendant.3 Several times during the testimony of Rickevicius, defense counsel objected on the ground that he was improperly testifying as a constancy witness because A had not yet testified.
As properly noted by the court, G and Rickevicius were not testifying as constancy witnesses. They were not allowed to testify as to the nature of A’s accusations against the defendant. They were providing background information for the jury. The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony of G and Rickevicius because it concerned the various observations of the witnesses, the investigative efforts of the police and the sequence of events leading to the defendant’s arrest. See State v. Vidro, 71 Conn. App. 89, 93-95, 800 A.2d 661, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 935, 806 A.2d 1070 (2002). “The omission of this information would have left important gaps in the chronology of the case and left the jury to speculate about the investigative efforts undertaken by the police.” Id., 95.
Ill
The defendant’s next claim is that the court improperly admitted A’s letter to G as constancy of accusation evidence. The defendant argues that the letter contained irrelevant and highly prejudicial language and that its admission violated the limiting strictures set forth in State v. Troupe, supra, 237 Conn. 284.4
*425The defendant filed a pretrial motion in limine seeking to limit the admissibility of the letter. He requested that the court order the redaction of “[a]ny portions of the letter that could arouse the emotions and sympathies of the jury in favor of the victim, and . . . bring contempt and opprobrium on the defendant as well as any statements that would have the natural effect of arousing pity and sympathy for the victim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) At a pretrial hearing held on March 24,2005, the court requested that counsel meet to discuss a possible agreement as to the portions of the letter to be redacted. The court indicated that if counsel could not reach an agreement, the state and the defendant were to submit copies of the letter with their proposed redactions and that the court would hear argument before evidence commenced.
On the first day of trial, before any of the witnesses testified, counsel appeared before the court, and a lengthy colloquy ensued as to the proposed redactions. The court noted: “We have had discussions both on the record and in chambers regarding redacting this letter so that it complies with the requirements of State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 284].” The court requested that defense counsel submit a copy of the letter with the defendant’s proposed redactions and that the prosecutor indicate which of those redactions were contested. Counsel and the court then proceeded to review each page of the nine page letter.
It is undisputed that the only basis for the admission of the redacted letter was to corroborate A’s testimony pursuant to the constancy of accusation doctrine.5 The *426court stated that the limitations of Troupe were very narrow and that the proposed redactions of defense counsel, upon preliminary review, were “not extensive enough.” From a review of the transcript, it is apparent that both the state and the defendant wanted to retain certain portions of the letter that exceeded the Troupe strictures. At one point, the court addressed defense counsel: “I’m not as interested in flow as I am in meeting the requirements of Troupe. And it seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. If you want this document limited for purposes of constancy information, we’re not going to include a lot of extraneous information.” After considerable give-and-take among the court, defense counsel and the prosecutor, it appeared that an agreement had been reached with respect to the portions to be redacted. At no point did defense counsel object on the record to the inclusion of particular statements in the letter after the court made its various rulings.
The defendant now claims that most of the contents of the letter should not have been admitted because the unredacted statements went far beyond the fact and timing of the complaint. There are two specific portions of the letter that the defendant argues were “extraordinarily prejudicial.” A wrote that she was “scarred [for] life” because of the defendant’s actions, and she concluded the letter with the request, “please help me mom, you’re my only hope.”
The defendant claims that he preserved this issue when he filed his motion in limine requesting the redaction of any language in the letter that would arouse the emotions or sympathies of the jury. He argues that Practice Book § 60-56 provides that it is not necessary *427to voice any further objection once an adverse ruling is made by the court.
The defendant filed his motion in limine on March 23, 2005. On March 24, 2005, the court asked counsel to meet and to discuss a possible agreement as to the redacted portions of the letter. On March 30, 2005, defense counsel presented the court with a copy of the letter containing the defendant’s proposed redactions.7 After considerable discussion on the record, it appeared that the defendant and the state had reached a compromise. The defendant did not object at that time to any unredacted statement. The redacted version of the letter was submitted as state’s exhibit six during the direct examination of A. At that time, defense counsel indicated that she had no objection to its admission, and it was admitted as a full exhibit.8
*428The court reasonably could have concluded that defense counsel had abandoned any previous claims regarding the admissibility of certain portions of the letter and agreed with the redactions as discussed immediately prior to the start of evidence. The defendant never specifically requested that the “scarred [for] life” language or A’s entreaty to G to “please help me mom, you’re my only hope” be redacted from that exhibit. Moreover, the defendant stated that he had no objection to state’s exhibit six when it was offered as a full exhibit. “For this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 680, 858 A.2d 860 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912, 866 A.2d 1283 (2005) .
We conclude that defense counsel’s conduct represented acquiescence to the court’s rulings with respect to the admissibility of the redacted version of A’s letter. He has, therefore, waived any claim that its admission violated the limiting strictures set forth in State v. Troupe, supra, 237 Conn. 284.
IV
The defendant’s final claim is that the state’s prosecutorial improprieties during closing arguments deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. He argues that the prosecutor improperly (1) expressed her personal opinion regarding the evidence presented at trial and (2) appealed to the emotions and sympathies of the jury. The defendant contends that the cumulative effect of those improprieties deprived him of a fair trial. Despite the defendant’s failure to object to the challenged statements at trial, his claim is reviewable in light of State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 33, 917 A.2d 978 *429(2007). “Once prosecutorial impropriety has been alleged ... it is unnecessary for a defendant to seek to prevail under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and it is unnecessary for an appellate court to review the defendant’s claim under Golding.” State v. Fauci, supra, 33.
“[I]n analyzing claims of prosecutorial [impropriety], we engage in a two step analytical process. The two steps are separate and distinct: (1) whether [impropriety] occurred in the first instance; and (2) whether that [impropriety] deprived a defendant of his due process right to a fair trial. Put differently, [impropriety] is [impropriety], regardless of its ultimate effect on the fairness of the trial; whether that [impropriety] caused or contributed to a due process violation is a separate and distinct question .... As we have indicated, our determination of whether any improper conduct by the state’s attorney violated the defendant’s fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams, [204 Conn. 523, 540, 529 A.2d 653 (1987)], with due consideration of whether that [impropriety] was objected to at trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354, 361-62, 897 A.2d 569 (2006).
Because the alleged impropriety occurred during closing argument, we set forth the applicable legal principles. “[P]rosecutorial [impropriety] of a constitutional magnitude can occur in the course of closing arguments. . . . [B]ecause closing arguments often have a rough and tumble quality about them, some leeway must be afforded to the advocates in offering arguments to the jury in final argument. [I]n addressing the jury, [c]ounsel must be allowed a generous latitude in argument, as the limits of legitimate argument and fair comment cannot be determined precisely by rule and line, and something must be allowed for the zeal of counsel in the heat of argument. . . . Nevertheless, [w]hile a *430prosecutor may argue the state’s case forcefully, such argument must be fair and based upon the facts in evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Necaise, 97 Conn. App. 214, 229-30, 904 A.2d 245, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942, 912 A.2d 478 (2006).
A
The defendant claims that the prosecutor improperly vouched for her view of the evidence in a statement made during her rebuttal argument to the jury. The defendant argues that by using the phrase, “because that’s what happened,” the prosecutor interjected her personal opinion or beliefs into the summation of the trial.9
“[A] prosecutor may not express his own opinion, directly or indirectly, as to the credibility of the witnesses. ... Nor should a prosecutor express his opinion, directly or indirectly, as to the guilt of the defendant. . . . Such expressions of personal opinion are a form of unsworn and unchecked testimony, and are particularly difficult for the jury to ignore because of the prosecutor’s special position. . . . Moreover, because the jury is aware that the prosecutor has prepared and presented the case and consequently, may have access to matters not in evidence ... it is likely to infer that such matters precipitated the personal *431opinions. ... It is not, however, improper for the prosecutor to comment upon the evidence presented at trial and to argue the inferences that the jurors might draw therefrom . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 435, 902 A.2d 636 (2006).
We conclude that the comment of the prosecutor was not improper.10 When the isolated comment challenged by the defendant is placed in context with the remainder of the remarks of the prosecutor during the rebuttal argument, it is clear that she was responding to the defendant’s suggestion that A may have been making the accusations against him in order to gain the attention of her mother or that A was confused as to the identity of the individual who sexually assaulted her. The comments of the prosecutor invited the jurors to consider the different, motives of A to lie or to tell the truth and invited them to use common sense and experience in evaluating the testimony of the witnesses. See State v. Jose G., 102 Conn. App. 748, 761-62, 929 A.2d 324, cert. granted on other grounds, 284 Conn. 916, 931 A.2d 937 (2007). Taken in context, the comment did not constitute the personal opinion of the prosecutor.11
*432B
The defendant next claims that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the emotions and sympathies of the jury when she began her closing argument by referencing certain impassioned statements from A’s letter to G. Specifically, the defendant argues that the state’s thrice repeated plea, “please help me,” followed by the statement that those were “the words of a fifteen year old girl begging for someone to finally listen,” invited the jury to make its decision on the basis of emotional rather than evidential factors.12 We agree that the comments of the prosecutor were improper.
“It is well established that, a prosecutor may not appeal to the emotions, passions and prejudices of the jurors. . . . We have stated that such appeals should be avoided because they have the effect of diverting the jury’s attention from [its] duty to decide the case on the evidence. . . . When the prosecutor appeals to emotions, he invites the jury to decide the case, not according to a rational appraisal of the evidence, but on the basis of powerful and irrelevant factors which are likely to skew that appraisal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bermudez, 274 Conn. 581, 595-96, 876 A.2d 1162 (2005), aff'd after remand, 95 Conn. App. 577, 897 A.2d 61 (2006).
*433The letter from A to G was admitted as constancy of accusation evidence. Accordingly, the court gave a limiting instruction to the jury at the time of its admission.13 The prosecutor, however, in her closing argument, made no reference to that fact when she read the emotional excerpts from the letter. “As a general matter, a prosecutor may use any evidence properly admitted at trial. Properly admitted evidence, however, may not be used for a purpose for which it was not admitted.” State v. Camacho, 282 Conn. 328, 377, 924 A.2d 99, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 956, 128 S. Ct. 388, 169 L. Ed. 2d 273 (2007). The letter, admitted for the limited purpose of corroborating A’s testimony pursuant to the constancy of accusation doctrine, was not used by the prosecutor for that purpose. Further, the sole purpose for repeating three times A’s pleas for help could only have been to encourage the jury to sympathize with A and to decide the case on the basis of passion and emotion. See State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. 377.
Having concluded that those comments of the prosecutor amounted to an improper emotional appeal, we must now ascertain whether the trial as a whole was fundamentally unfair and whether the impropriety so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the defendant’s conviction a denial of due process. “In order to make this determination, we consider the factors [set forth in State v. Williams, supra, 204 Conn. 540], specifically: the extent to which the impropriety was invited *434by the defendant’s conduct or argument, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” State v. Camacho, supra, 282 Conn. 382. After examination of all of the factors, we conclude that the defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial by the prosecutorial impropriety in this case.
We do not discern any conduct by the defendant as having invited these improper appeals to the emotions of the jurors. The prosecutor began her closing argument by thrice repeating A’s pleas from the letter. Further, the state’s case was not particularly strong because the credibility of A was the central issue in the case, and there was no physical evidence to corroborate her testimony. See State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. 397. Those factors weigh in favor of the defendant.
The improper comments, however, occurred only during closing argument, where we typically allow some latitude, and they represented a small portion of that argument. The improper comments were isolated and sporadic rather than frequent and pervasive. See State v. Camacho, supra, 282 Conn. 383. We do not view the statements made as “grossly egregious . . . [and] severe enough to mandate reversal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Moreover, in determining whether prosecutorial impropriety was severe, we consider it highly significant that defense counsel failed to object to the remarks when made or to request curative instructions or to move for a mistrial. State v. Fauci, supra, 282 Conn. 51. Additionally, the comments were unrelated to the critical issues in the case. Indeed, the absence of a connection to any evidentiary matter in the case made them improper.
Finally, with respect to curative instructions, the court gave no specific instruction directed to the *435improper remarks because the defendant did not object to the prosecutorial impropriety. Although this does not preclude us from reviewing the defendant’s claim, the failure to object is important. The defendant “bears a significant degree of responsibility for the fact that this impropriety went uncured. ... In addition, we note that a failure to object demonstrates that defense counsel presumably [did] not view the alleged impropriety as prejudicial enough to jeopardize seriously the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Luster, supra, 279 Conn. 445-46.14
Accordingly, we conclude that, in the context of the entire trial, the improper comments of the prosecutor did not deprive the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.