State Of conn. v. Dupigney
Decision Date | 09 March 2010 |
Citation | 295 Conn. 50,988 A.2d 851 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John DUPIGNEY. |
W. Theodore Koch III, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was William T. Koch, Jr., special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, state's attorney, and, on the brief, Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and Linda N. Howe, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js.
This appeal raises an issue of first impression before this court, namely, the meaning and proper application of the standard for obtaining postconviction DNA testing of evidence under General Statutes § 54-102kk(b)(1), 1 pursuant to which a petitioneris entitled to such relief if he demonstrates that a "reasonable probability exists that [he] would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing...." Following his 2000 conviction for murder and related firearms offenses and an unsuccessful appeal from the judgment of conviction; see State v. Dupigney, 78 Conn.App. 111, 826 A.2d 241, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 919, 837 A.2d 801 (2003); the defendant, John Dupigney (petitioner), filed a petition, pursuant to § 54-102kk(b), requesting DNA testing of a hat found at the murder scene that was introduced into evidence by the state in the petitioner's criminal trial. The petitioner now appeals from the decision of the trial court, Damiani, J., denying his petition.2 The petitioner claims that the trial court improperly concluded that there was no reasonable probability that exculpatory DNA evidence would have altered the outcome of his trial. We conclude that the trial court properly applied the reasonable probability standard under § 54-102kk, and we therefore affirm the trial court's decision.
The record, including the Appellate Court's opinion in the petitioner's appeal from his underlying judgment of conviction, reveals the following facts that the jury reasonably could have found, as well as the pertinent procedural history. "Morris Lewis, the victim, and Herbert Dupigney, the [petitioner's] brother, were partners in an illegal drug selling enterprise in New Haven. The drug sales were conducted primarily at 304 Winthrop Avenue. Other members of the operation included Nick Padmore, an[d] individuals known to the participants in the trial only as `Ebony' and Eric Raven. In December, 1994, following the victim's incarceration, the [petitioner] moved from Boston to New Haven to assist his brother in the drug operation. The [petitioner] also enlisted an acquaintance from Boston, Derrick D'Abreau, to help with the drug sales. D'Abreau moved to New Haven in the beginning of January, 1995.
Shortly after the shooting, Padmore 3 State v. Dupigney, supra, 78 Conn.App. at 120-21, 826 A.2d 241.
As a result, the state thereafter charged the petitioner with one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, one count of carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 and one count of criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217c. Id., at 114, 826 A.2d 241. At trial, the state offered into evidence a black knit hat, bloodied and with two holes, that the police had recovered from the driveway of 315 Winthrop Avenue on the night of the murder. Two witnesses for the state, D'Abreau and Aisha Wilson, testified that they had observed the shooting from the fourth floor of an apartment building across the street from 315 Winthrop Avenue. Both witnessesidentified the petitioner as the shooter and testified that the petitioner had been wearing a black knit hat both just before the shooting and at the time of the shooting.4
The petitioner essentially presented a mistaken identity defense. During the criminal trial, the petitioner's counsel made a motion to have the hat tested. The trial court, Owens, J., denied the motion. Thereafter, the petitioner was found guilty on all three counts, 5 and was sentenced to a total effective term of seventy years incarceration. Id., at 114-15, 826 A.2d 241.
After an unsuccessful direct appeal to the Appellate Court, in which the petitioner did not challenge the trial court's denial of his motion for DNA testing, the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition claiming, inter alia, that his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to move timely for DNA testing of the hat found at the murder scene. In furtherance of his actual innocence claim in that petition, which is still pending, the petitioner also filed the petition at issue in the present case seeking DNA testing of the hat under § 54-102kk. In 2007, the trial court, Damiani, J., conducted a hearing on the § 54-102kk petition, after which the court denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner had not shown that there was a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if the hat had been tested.
On appeal to this court, the petitioner claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion for postconviction DNA testing under § 54-102kk(b). Specifically, he claims that the trial court misapplied the statute, under which he is entitled to DNA testing if a "reasonable probability exists that [he] would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing...."6 General Statutes § 54-102kk(b)(1). To support this claim, the petitioner suggests that testing on the hat could reveal DNA matching neither the victim nor the petitioner and that such a finding could create a reasonable probability that the jury could have formed a reasonable doubt that the petitioner was the shooter. We disagree.
Neither this court nor the Appellate Court has construed the standard for ordering postconviction DNA testing under § 54-102kk(b). Therefore, before we can determine whether the trial court properly applied the reasonable probability standard under that statute, we must ascertain its meaning. Because this is an issue of statutory interpretation, we exercise de novo review. See State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1, 13, 981 A.2d 427 (2009).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lapointe v. Comm'r of Corr.
...and that the respective roles of the habeas and reviewing courts are the same under both standards. See, e.g., State v. Dupigney, 295 Conn. 50, 60-63, 988 A.2d 851 (2010). I will therefore analyze the principles that apply to these claims together and, for simplicity, will refer to the stan......
-
Lapointe v. Comm'r of Corr.
...and that the respective roles of the habeas and reviewing courts are the same under both standards. See, e.g., State v. Dupigney, 295 Conn. 50, 60–63, 988 A.2d 851 (2010). I will therefore analyze the principles that apply to these claims together and, for simplicity, will refer to the stan......
-
State v. Rosa
...guilt, it is less likely that the undisclosed evidence would undermine confidence in the verdict. See, e.g., State v. Dupigney , 295 Conn. 50, 73, 988 A.2d 851 (2010).In this case, the defendant failed to prove that the CODIS match constituted material evidence. The defendant did not testif......
-
State v. Denny
...testing motions noted, the test appropriately focuses on the fairness and reliability of the verdict.8 368 Wis.2d 391State v. Dupigney, 295 Conn. 50, 988 A.2d 851, 858–59 (2010); see also State v. Hammond, 93 So.3d 172, 177 (Ala.Crim.App.2012); Richardson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 1040,......