State v. Cohane
| Decision Date | 26 June 1984 |
| Citation | 193 Conn. 474,479 A.2d 763 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John C. COHANE. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Kurt Weist, law student intern, with whom were Julia D. Dewey, Asst. State's Atty., and, on the brief, Arnold Markle, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before SPEZIALE, C.J., and PARSKEY, SHEA, GRILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of the crimes of murder, General Statutes § 53a-54a(a), and assault in the first degree, General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1). He has appealed from the trial court's judgment of guilty, entered pursuant to the conviction. We find error both in the trial court's instructions to the jury and in the state's failure to disclose evidence favorable to the accused.
The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: At or about 7:45 p.m. on March 22, 1975, Steven Lawry and a female companion, both eighteen years of age, were in Lawry's car, parked on a dirt road near Baldwin Drive in Hamden. Baldwin Drive is a secluded road in the West Rock area of Hamden. It is known as a lovers' lane. The couple were in the front seat of the car when another person approached the car on foot from the driver's side and fired several shots from a .22 caliber rifle at them. The assailant then moved to the passenger's side of the car, smashed out the passenger's window, and fired several more shots inside. The female victim was struck by eight bullets and died almost instantly. Lawry was shot six times but was able to drive the car to a relative's home, where he summoned aid. Lawry survived the attack and was able to give investigating officers a vague description of the assailant.
At some point during the ensuing investigation the Hamden police identified the defendant as a suspect. Within three weeks of the shooting three different Hamden police officers questioned the defendant concerning his activities on March 22, 1975. On April 16, 1975, Hamden police officers, acting pursuant to a search warrant signed On April 30, 1975, the defendant filed a motion for a hearing to determine his competency to stand trial. The trial court, Naruk, J., ordered such a hearing pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 54-40, 3 and appointed two psychiatrists to examine the defendant and report their findings to the court. After a hearing on the matter the trial court, Levine, J., found the defendant competent to stand trial.
by a judge of the Superior Court, searched the defendant's home and automobile. They seized, among other things, a bill of sale for a .22 caliber rifle, a .22 caliber casing, and a .22 caliber bullet. 1 [193 Conn. 477] The police then took the defendant to Hamden police headquarters where he was charged with murder and with assault in the first degree in connection with the shooting of Lawry and his companion. A grand jury subsequently indicted the defendant on the murder charge. 2
On June 16, 1976, the defendant moved for a reexamination of his competency to stand trial. After another hearing, the trial court, O'Brien, J., found the defendant competent to stand trial so long as he continued to receive medication prescribed to control symptoms of psychosis. Shortly before trial, the defendant again moved for a hearing to determine his competency to stand trial. He claimed that continued ingestion of anti-psychotic drugs altered his deportment and demeanor to such an extent that he could not be considered competent to stand trial. After a hearing, the trial court, Hadden, J., found that the defendant was "able to understand the proceedings against him and to assist counsel in his own defense" and held that he was competent to stand trial. General Statutes § 54-40(c). The case then went to trial.
Because the only known witness to the shooting, Lawry, was unable to identify the assailant, the state's case-in-chief relied primarily on several inculpatory statements made by the defendant after his arrest and on circumstantial evidence provided by the testimony of witnesses tending to link the defendant to the shooting. A ballistics expert testified that a bullet taken from the female victim's body and a bullet found lodged in a door at the defendant's home had been fired from the same .22 caliber rifle. Three other witnesses who had been parked on Baldwin Drive on the night of the shooting identified the defendant's mother's car and testified that it had been parked near the Lawry vehicle on Baldwin Drive that evening. Elizabeth Cohane, the defendant's mother, testified that the defendant had driven her car from the family home early that evening and returned shortly after 9 p.m.
Although the defendant did not admit that he was involved in any way with the shooting, he did not offer any evidence directly contradicting the state's allegation that he shot the victims. Instead, he put the state to its proof on the issue of identity and relied on a defense of insanity. At the time, General Statutes § 53a-13 4 provided The defendant introduced the testimony of a number of lay witnesses who described the defendant as a troubled person, given to bizarre behavior and having a disturbed outlook on life in general, and sexuality in particular. The defense relied most heavily on the expert testimony of four psychiatrists, each of whom had examined the defendant before trial. Each of the four psychiatrists testified that the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the shooting and that he lacked a substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The defendant did not testify at trial; however, his account of the shooting was rendered by each of the psychiatrists as each described the basis for his conclusion as to the defendant's mental state.
in relevant part, that insanity constituted a defense to a criminal charge if the defendant "as a result of mental disease or defect lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his [193 Conn. 479] conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law." The defendant claimed, in essence, that at the time of the shooting he was in an uncontrollable psychotic rage caused by his observations of sexual activity in Lawry's car and that he therefore lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to act in conformity with the law
The state offered the expert testimony of one psychiatrist in rebutting the defendant's claim of insanity. The state's witness agreed that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect but concluded that at the time of the crime the defendant had the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
On May 27, 1977, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both charges. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of twenty years to life on the murder charge and five to ten years on the assault in the first degree charge, for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years to life.
The defendant has appealed from the judgment of conviction claiming error on several issues. We hold that (1) the trial court's error in failing to instruct the jury that it could not draw any inference from the defendant's decision not to testify, and (2) state's attorney Arnold Markle's failure to disclose evidence favorable to the accused compel a new trial. Therefore, we do not fully address the other claims of error. 5
On May 25, 1977, at the conclusion of all testimony in the case, the defendant submitted certain requests to charge the jury. One such request concerned the defendant's exercise of his right under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution not to give evidence against himself. The defendant's request asked the court to instruct the jury about that right and to add that "[a]bsolutely no inference of guilt can be drawn from the exercise by the accused of his constitutional right not to testify."
After hearing argument by defense counsel and the state's attorney concerning proposed jury instructions the trial court ruled that it would not give the "no-adverse-inference" charge as requested by the defendant. In keeping with that ruling, on May 26, 1977, the trial court instructed the jury on this issue as follows:
The defendant excepted to the charge for its failure to include the instruction that the jury could not draw any inference of guilt from the defendant's decision not to testify. On appeal the defendant claims that the trial court erred in its instruction and that reversal is required. We agree.
The fifth amendment to the United States constitution provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." That provision acts as a restraint upon the individual states as well as the federal government under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1963). Article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution affords criminal defendants a similar protection in language at least as broad as its federal counterpart. That section, which sets forth the rights of accused persons in criminal prosecutions, provides that "[n]o person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself ...."
In Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981), the United States Supreme Court addressed the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chung
...of justice in order to review the defendant's claim. 5 See State v. Madera, supra at 99-100, 503 A.2d 136; State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 499, 479 A.2d 763, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990, 105 S.Ct. 397, 83 L.Ed.2d 331 (1984), citing United States v. Butler, 567 F.2d 885, 893 (9th Cir.1978). A......
-
State v. Madera
...7 The question remains whether we should exercise our inherent supervisory authority over the administration of justice; State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 479 A.2d 763, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 397, 83 L.Ed.2d 331 (1984), citing United States v. Butler, 567 F.2d 885, 893 (9th Ci......
-
In re Yasiel R.
...the court's supervisory authority. See, e.g., State v. Elson, supra, 311 Conn. 771 n.31 (characterizing decision in State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 499-500, 479 A.2d 763, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 990, 105 S. Ct. 397, 83 L. Ed. 2d 331 [1984], as exercise of supervisory authority, despite fact ......
-
State v. Hinckley
...had the opportunity to address the issue of reviewability of insanity instructions in the absence of a timely objection in State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 479 A.2d 763, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 397, 83 L.Ed.2d 331 (1984). Because we ordered a new trial on other grounds we did ......