State v. Cooper

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BRIGHT, J.
• Citation: State v. Cooper, 343 A.3d 465, 353 Conn. 510 (Conn. 2025)
• Docket Number: SC 20865
• Decision Date: 30 September 2025
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Jahmari COOPER

343 A.3d 465

353 Conn. 510

STATE of Connecticut

v.Jahmari COOPER

(SC 20865)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 14, 2025

Officially Released September 30, 2025

Erica A. Barber, assistant public defender, with whom, on the brief, were Nicole Gagnon and Joshua Maddox, certified legal interns, for the appellant (defendant).

Heather M. Mansfield and Isabella J. Carr-Perri, certified legal interns, with whom were Ronald G. Weller, senior assistant state’s attorney, and, on the brief, Joseph T. Corradino, state’s attorney, and Tiffany M. Lockshier, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Mullins, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Ecker, Dannehy and Bright, Js.

BRIGHT, J.

₅₁₄After a jury trial, the defendant, Jahmari Cooper, was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) for fatally shooting the victim, Jeri Kollock, Jr., when the defendant was seventeen years old. In this direct appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3), the defendant claims that (1) the circumstances of his custodial police interrogation do not establish a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda¹ rights under the federal constitution, (2) even if this court concludes that the federal constitutional requirements were satisfied, he is entitled to greater protection under our state constitution, (3) prosecutorial impropriety during closing and rebuttal arguments deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial, and (4) the trial court erred in giving the jury a consciousness of guilt instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to the defendant’s appeal. In October, 2017, the victim was shot six times in stairwell B inside building one of the Charles F. Greene Homes housing complex (Greene Homes) in Bridgeport. A resident of the building called 911 at 4:29 p.m. and reported hearing several gunshots. Bridgeport police officers arrived at building one a few minutes later and canvassed the perimeter of the building. An officer tried to enter the basement door at the bottom of an exterior stairwell behind building one, ₅₁₅which leads to stairwell B, but the door was locked. Because the basement door automatically locks when it is closed, the door usually would be propped open with a rock. Two police officers entered the building through the front entrance at 4:35 p.m. and exited about five minutes later. The responding officers found no evidence of a shooting, so they left around 4:45 p.m.

About thirty minutes later, however, several people called 911 after they saw the victim on the ground outside the basement door; the victim was naked, covered in blood, and looked like he was “about to die.” One of the callers reported that she saw the victim push open the basement door. A resident retrieved a towel from his apartment and draped it over the victim’s midsection before officers arrived. The police arrived at 5:16 p.m. and summoned paramedics, who arrived shortly thereafter. The paramedics were unable to revive the victim and declared him dead at 5:25 p.m. An autopsy later revealed that the victim was shot six times, that the trajectory of each bullet was right to left and downward, and that the victim died because of gunshot wounds to the head, torso, and an extremity.

Stairwell B extends from the basement to the seventh story. It consists of switch-back flights of stairs that rise seven steps in one direction to a landing and then rise four steps in the opposite direction to a landing at the next story. There was a trail of blood beginning on the second story landing, continuing down the stairs and across the basement floor, and ending outside the basement door where the victim died. The police found eight spent .45 caliber TulAmmo brand shell casings scattered on the third story landing and the steps ascending to the landing between the third and fourth stories. On the landing between the third and second stories, the police found the victim’s clothes and bullet holes approximately eighteen inches above the floor in the corner walls of the landing. This evidence indicated ₅₁₆that the shooter was standing on the third story landing while firing down at the victim, who was positioned on the landing between the second and third stories. The bloodstain patterns on the stairs and in the basement indicated that the victim slowly descended the stairs to the basement, dragged himself approximately seventy-five feet across the basement floor, pushed open the exterior door, and pulled himself into the exterior stairwell, where he died.

During the investigation, the police obtained video footage from cameras positioned near the crime scene and identified the victim and the defendant in the footage. At 4:10 p.m., the defendant approached the victim in a parking lot behind Columbus School. The defendant shook the victim’s hand and began feeling the victim’s pants pockets as though he was checking for a weapon. When the victim stood up and began to walk with the defendant, the defendant stopped and felt the victim’s pants pockets again before continuing to walk and talk with the victim. The victim and the defendant remained in the parking lot area for approximately twelve minutes, during which time they interacted with each other as well as with other individuals in the area. At 4:23 p.m., the defendant abruptly turned and walked away from the group, and the victim followed the defendant out of the parking lot. With the victim following a few paces behind the defendant, they walked to Greene Homes, heading up the rear driveway of the complex. At 4:25:16 p.m., the defendant walked up the stairs leading to the back of building one and out of any camera’s view, and the victim followed at 4:25:35 p.m. At 4:28:24 p.m., a camera overlooking the front of building one captured the defendant as he exited the building through the front entrance and covered his face with a mask. The only way to exit the front door of building one after having entered from the rear of the building is to climb stairwell B at least to the fourth floor, cross the floor to the ₅₁₇front stairway, and then descend that stairway to the front door.

Approximately two weeks after the shooting, officers obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s residence. The defendant, who was seventeen years and nine months old, was living with his great-grandmother, who was his legal guardian. The defendant and his great-grandmother were home when officers executed the search warrant, and Detective Robert Winkler and Lieutenant Christopher LaMaine² read the defendant and his great-grandmother Miranda warnings before questioning the defendant at the residence. Both the defendant and his great-grandmother signed a card acknowledging that the defendant had been advised of his rights and had agreed to speak to the police. During the interview, which was audio-recorded by the police, the defendant admitted that he had a gun in the house and that he was with the victim near Greene Homes on the day of the murder, but he denied being involved in the shooting. After approximately nineteen minutes, the defendant said that he would not answer any more questions.

During the search, officers seized an Astra .45 caliber pistol with .45 caliber TulAmmo bullets from a dresser drawer in the defendant’s bedroom; the pistol was wrapped in a dark, hooded sweatshirt like the one worn by the defendant in the surveillance footage.³ Marshal Robinson, a firearm and toolmark examiner for the Bridgeport Police Department, later concluded, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the bullets and bullet casings found at the crime scene and removed from the victim’s body had been fired and ejected from ₅₁₈the pistol found in the defendant’s bedroom. In November, 2017, an arrest warrant was issued for the defendant, charging him with, inter alia, murder. After officers were unable to locate the defendant, they notified the United States Marshals Service that they were looking for the defendant. A regional fugitive task force located the defendant in Florida in October, 2018, and he was returned to Connecticut.

Before trial, the state filed a substitute information charging the defendant with a single count of murder, and the case proceeded to trial on that charge. After the state concluded its case-in-chief, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant was the shooter. The court denied the motion, stating: “[T]he defendant was the last person with the victim alive, [he] walked into a building with [the victim], only the defendant walked out of the building, [and] the defendant was found with the murder weapon just two weeks later. I’ll note [that] the defendant was also frisking the victim upon encountering him, strongly suggesting [that] there was some sort of animosity between them to begin with. I think there’s plenty of evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt…”

The defendant did not offer any evidence, and, after closing arguments, the court instructed the jury on the charge of murder and, in accordance with the state’s request to charge, on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and manslaughter in the second degree with a firearm. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder, and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of forty-five years of incarceration, followed by ten years of special parole. This appeal followed.

I

₅₁₉The defendant claims that the entirety of his statement to LaMaine and Winkler should have been suppressed because the circumstances of his custodial police interrogation did not establish a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights and that the admission of his improperly obtained statement was not harmless. We are...