State v. Cobb
| Decision Date | 07 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | (SC 14384) |
| Citation | 743 A.2d 1,251 Conn. 285 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. SEDRICK COBB |
Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Berdon, Norcott, Katz, Peters and O'Connell, Js.1 Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, and Jonathan M. Levine, with whom was David S. Golub, for the appellant (defendant).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were John A. Connelly, state's attorney, and Maureen M. Keegan, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Page I. FACTS 301 II. SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUES 306 A. The December 21, 1989 Warrantless Search of the Defendant's Apartment 314 B. The December 21, 1989 Warrant to Search the Defendant's Apartment 316 C. The Execution of the December 21, 1989 Search Warrant 322 D. The December 22, 1989 Seizure of Certain Items from the Defendant's Car 325 1. The December 22, 1989 Search Warrant for the Defendant's Car 326 2. The Pretrial Ruling 328 3. The Panel's Ruling During Trial 329 4. The Defendant's Claims on Appeal 332 E. The December 26, 1989 Search Warrant for the Defendant's Apartment 341 F. The Execution of the December 26, 1989 Search Warrant 345 G. The December 26, 1989 Seizure of the Valve Cap and Valve Stem Remover from the Defendant's Car 348 III. THE DEFENDANT'S CONFESSION 349 IV. GUILT PHASE ISSUES 364 A. Waiver of a Jury Trial 365 B. Motion for a Mistrial 375 C. The Factual Basis of the Verdict 379 D. The Sufficiency of the Evidence 384 E. Murder-Kidnapping Capital Felony 386 F. Murder-Sexual Assault Capital Felony 387 G. The Two Witness Rule 389 H. The Imposition of Two Death Sentences 390 V. PENALTY PHASE ISSUES 392 A. The Defendant's Waiver of a Jury Trial 393 B. Disclosure of the Factual Basis of the Guilt Phase Verdicts 393 C. The Defendant's Claim that the State Improperly Changed Its Theory of Aggravation 397 1. The Evidence at the Guilt Phase 398 2. The Arguments at the Guilt Phase 403 3. The Evidence at the Penalty Phase 407 4. The Arguments at the Penalty Phase 410 D. The State's Notice of Aggravating Factors 419 E. The Denial of Disclosure Regarding the Defendant's Mental Condition 422 F. Articulation of the Factual Basis of the Panel's Verdict Regarding the Aggravating Factors 426 G. The Panel's Treatment of the Unitary Aggravating Factor as Three Separate Factors 432 H. The Definitions of "Especially Heinous" and "Especially Vague" 434 I. The Purported Inadequacy of the Panel's Verdict 434 J. The Claimed Retroactivity of the Ross Definition of "Especially Cruel" 436 K. The Claimed Inapplicability of Certain Ross Language 442 L. The Sufficiency of the Evidence of the Aggravating Factor 446 M. Articulation of the Factual Basis of the Panel's Verdict Regarding the Mitigating Factors 451 N. Whether the Panel Properly Exercised Its Sentencing Function 452 O. The Panel's Verdict Regarding Mitigation 456 P. The Purported Use of the Defendant's Motion to Suppress his Confession 466 Q. The Purported Misapplication of the Concept of Mitigation 468 R. The Purported Failure to Consider Certain Nonstatutory Mitigating Factors 469 S. The Purported Failure to Consider the "Catchall" Mitigating Factor 472 T. The Purported Failure to Consider Mercy or Appropriateness of the Death Penalty 474 U. The Purported Failure to Consider the Severity of the Aggravating Factor 475 V. The Purported Failure to Consider the Cumulative Impact of Mitigation 481 W. The Purported Vagueness of ž 53a-46a 482 X. The Purported Improper Failure to Find Mitigation 486 1. Claimed Mitigating Factors Regarding the Defendant's Psychological State 489 2. Claimed Nonstatutory Mitigating Factors 491 Y. The Imposition of Two Separate Death Sentences 496 Z. Certain Constitutional Challenges 496 AA. The Purported Arbitrary Factors Pursuant to ž 53a-46b (b) (1) and (2) 497 1. The Sufficiency of the Evidence of Aggravation 498 2. Certain Guilt Phase Challenges 498 3. Request for Evidentiary Hearing 498 VI. PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW 500 A. The State's Claim of Lack of Proportionality Review Jurisdiction 501 B. The Comparative Method of Proportionality Review 502 C. The Purported Speculative Basis of the Aggravant 509 D. Proportionality Review Pursuant to ž 53a-46b (b) (3) 509
The defendant, Sedrick Cobb, appeals2 from the judgment of the trial court, after a trial to a three judge court, of conviction of two counts of capital felony in violation of General Statutes ž 53a-54b (5) and (7),3 and one count of robbery in the third degree in violation of General Statutes ž 53a-136 (a).4 The trial court imposed two sentences of death on the capital felony counts, and a sentence of five years incarceration on the robbery count. The defendant raises a total of forty-five challenges to the judgment of conviction and to the death sentences. We affirm the judgment in all respects.
The defendant was charged in an information with: (1) two counts of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes ž 53a-92 (a) (2) (A) and (B);5 (2) robbery in the third degree in violation of ž 53a-136 (a); see footnote 3 of this opinion; (3) sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes ž 53a-70 (a);6 (4) murder in violation of General Statutes ž 53a-54a;7 and (5) two counts of capital felony in violation of ž 53a-54b (5) and (7). See footnote 2 of this opinion. After the trial court, Heiman, J., found probable cause to try the defendant on the murder and capital felony counts, the state filed a notice of aggravating factors alleging that the capital felonies were committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner, as provided in General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) ž 53a-46a (h) (4).8 The defendant waived a jury trial and elected to be tried by a three judge court, as provided by General Statutes ž 53a-45.9 Pursuant to ž 53a-45, the deputy chief court administrator, Hennessy, J., appointed a three judge panel consisting of Kulawiz, Barnett and Langenbach, Js. (panel), to hear the case.
The defendant filed three motions to suppress: (1) certain evidence gathered as a result of two searches of the defendant's automobile; (2) certain evidence gathered as a result of three searches of the defendant's residence; and (3) an oral confession made by the defendant. After an evidentiary hearing, the court, Pellegrino, J., denied the defendant's motions.
The trial then was held before the panel, which rendered a verdict finding the defendant guilty on all counts. Thereafter, pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) ž 53a-46a (b) (3),10 the defendant, with the approval of the court and the consent of the state, elected to have the penalty phase hearing held before the panel rather than a jury. The panel rendered a special verdict finding that both capital felonies had been committed in an especially cruel and heinous manner. The panel did not find, however, that the crimes had been committed in an especially depraved manner. In addition, the panel found that there had been no mitigating factors. The panel further determined that the counts charging kidnapping, sexual assault and murder were lesser included offenses of the capital felonies. Accordingly, the panel imposed two separate death sentences, one for each of the capital felony convictions, and a five year sentence for the robbery conviction. This appeal followed.
The panel reasonably could have found the following facts. On December 15, 1989, the defendant was in the parking lot of the Bradlees' shopping center in Waterbury. After Bonita Casertano parked her car in the lot and entered the shopping center, the defendant deflated one of her car tires with a valve stem remover. When she returned to her car, the defendant approached her, pointed to her deflated tire, and offered to change it for her. A friend of Casertano passed by, however, and offered to assist Casertano, at which time the defendant left the area.
On December 16, 1989, at approximately noon, the defendant was again in the Bradlees' shopping center parking lot. Susan Romaniello had parked her car and entered the shopping center. Thereafter, the defendant deflated one of her car tires with a valve stem remover. When she returned to her car, the defendant approached her, told her that her tire was flat, and offered to change it for her. She declined his offer, however, because she lived nearby and her father was able to come to her aid. When her father did so, he noticed that the valve cap was missing from the deflated tire.
On the evening of December 16, 1989, the victim in this case, Julia Ashe, drove her two door car to the Naugatuck Valley Mall in Waterbury, where she bought some items from Lerner's department store (Lerner's) and from Record Town. She then drove 2.4 miles to the Bradlees' shopping center and parked her car in the parking lot. The defendant was also in the parking lot, and had in his possession a valve stem remover and a roll of fiberglass reinforced tape. After the victim had left her car and entered the shopping center, the defendant deflated one of her car tires with his valve stem remover. When she returned to her car, the defendant approached her and offered to change the tire. She accepted his offer, and the defendant removed the deflated tire and replaced it with a donut spare tire from the trunk of the victim's automobile. While the defendant was changing the tire, Richard Sprague walked by and saw the defendant so engaged. At some point, the defendant told the victim that his car was disabled and requested a ride. The victim agreed to give him a ride to a gas station. The victim and the defendant then both entered her car with the victim in the driver's seat and the defendant in the front passenger seat. After they left the parking lot, the defendant forced the victim to drive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gibbs
...insight into the most logical interpretation of the concept of a single transaction for capital felony purposes. In State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 387-89, 743 A.2d 1 (1999), we rejected a claim by the defendant that a temporal gap between the sexual assault and the homicide that he had perpe......
-
Laurel Beach Assoc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Milford, 20905
...claims where a party waives or concedes them during trial and attempts to raise them before an appellate court; see State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 342-43, 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841, 121 S. Ct. 106, 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000); nor do we do so where a party attempts to raise t......
-
State v. Breton
...an alleged mitigating factor, and not to its determination of whether those facts were mitigating. Indeed, in State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 491, 743 A.2d 1 (1999) (Cobb II), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841, 121 S. Ct. 106, 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000), we implicitly applied this standard in reviewing......
-
State v. Hafford
...he had changed his mind and now wanted to tell the officers what had happened in order to get it "off his chest." See State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 363, 743 A.2d 1 (1999) (defendant's statement that he wanted to get matter "off his chest" indicated desire to relieve his conscience by confes......
-
Significant Developments in Criminal Law: 1999-2000
...by electrocution to death by lethal injection. 11 Webb, 252 Conn. at 147-51 (Norcott, J., dissenting); id. (Katz, J., dissenting). 12 251 Conn. 285, 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ , 121 S. Ct. 106 (2000). 13 Id. at 521 (Peters, J., concurring). 14 Id. at 465. 15 Id. at 420-21......
-
1999 Connecticut Appellate Review
...and John A. Reed, Seven Ang7y Men, 32 CONN.L.REV. 1577, 1617-18 (2000). 28. 250 Conn. 722, 737 A.2d 442 (1999). 29. Id. at 747. 30. 251 Conn. 285, 743 A.2d 1 (1999). MM. at 497 n. 32. Id. at 741-42. 33. 251 Conn. 671, 741 A.2d 913 (1999). 34. Id. at 741-42 (footnote omitted). 35. 249 Conn. ......
-
New Life for Connecticut's Death Penalty: Revised(fn*)
...BJ 262-284 (1994). **. Of the Stamford Bar; Legal Advisor of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union. 1. August 2000. 2. State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285 (1999) and State v. Webb, Conn. 128 (2000), 238 Conn. 389 (1996). 3. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 53a-46a. 4. 408 U.S. 238 (1972). 5. CONN. GEN. STAT., §......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...163 Clifton v. Commonwealth, 468 S.E.2d 155 (Va. Ct. App. 1996), 562 Clothier, State v., 753 P.2d 1267 (Kan. 1988), 265 Cobb, State v., 743 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1999), 189 Cody v. State, 361 P.2d 307 (Okla. Crim. App. 1961), 439 Cohen, United States v., 260 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2001), 415 Coker v. Geo......