State v. O'Donnell

Decision Date18 July 2017
Docket NumberAC 36606
Citation166 A.3d 646,174 Conn.App. 675
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. Gerald O'DONNELL

174 Conn.App. 675
166 A.3d 646

STATE of Connecticut
v.
Gerald O'DONNELL

AC 36606

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 9, 2017
Officially released July 18, 2017


Richard Emanuel, for the appellant (defendant).

Melissa Patterson, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Matthew C. Gedansky, state's attorney, and Marcia A. Pillsbury, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

DiPentima, C. J., and Beach and Danaher, Js.*

DANAHER, J.

174 Conn.App. 678

The defendant, Gerald O'Donnell, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of bribery of a witness in violation of

174 Conn.App. 679

General Statutes § 53a–149 and tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a–151. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the guilty verdict as being against the weight of the evidence, (3) the court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of tampering with a witness, (4) the court erred in denying the defendant's request for a witness to testify, in a proffer, outside the presence of the jury, and (5) the court erred in granting the state's motion to quash the defendant's subpoena requesting information and materials related to the witness protection program. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal comes before this court following extensive litigation involving the murder of Eugenio Vega, the owner of La Casa Green, a retail store on Grand Avenue in New Haven, in the early morning hours of July 4, 1993. An understanding of the facts and procedural history involving the prior litigation, as the jury reasonably could have found, is necessary in order to understand fully the issues presented in the defendant's appeal.

On the morning of Vega's murder, Pamela Youmans went to La Casa Green to make a purchase. Vega was alive when Youmans left the store. After Youmans left but while she was still in the vicinity of La Casa Green, she tossed a coin over her shoulder and a woman with a limp picked it up.1 That same morning, Mary Boyd

166 A.3d 651

walked by La Casa Green and observed two black males inside the store. One of the males was taller than the other. Later that morning, when Boyd went into the store to make a purchase, Vega was not there and did not respond when Boyd called him, so Boyd called 911. Boyd then took some quarters, cigarettes and food

174 Conn.App. 680

stamps and left before the police arrived because she knew that there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest. When the police responded to the call, they discovered Vega, who had been shot and was deceased, with his hands tied.

The New Haven Police Department questioned Doreen Stiles in the course of the investigation into Vega's murder. Stiles provided two written statements to the New Haven Police Department. In her first statement, dated July 29, 1993, Stiles described how she was in the vicinity of Vega's store on the morning of the murder when she saw a black male enter the store. Because the man frightened her, Stiles hid next door between the store and an alleyway, where she heard arguing from inside and someone asking Vega for money and to open the safe. She then heard a gunshot and saw two black males leave the store.2 In her statement of July 29, 1993, Stiles identified George M. Gould as one of the individuals coming out of the store on the date of the murder. On August 2, 1993, Stiles gave a second written statement in which she identified Ronald Taylor as the other individual involved in the incident. At a probable cause hearing on October 14, 1993, Stiles testified consistently with her July 29, 1993 statement to the police. She also testified that she saw Boyd in the vicinity of the store on the morning of the murder. At the criminal trial of Gould and Taylor in January, 1995, Stiles, who testified that she had a disability in

174 Conn.App. 681

her leg, identified Taylor and Gould as being present at Vega's store on the morning of his murder.3 Following a jury trial, Taylor and Gould were each convicted of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54c, robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–134(a)(2) and 53a–8, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–134(a)(2), 53a–8 and 53a–49, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48(a) and 53a–134(a)(2).4 Our Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court, with the exception of Taylor's conviction of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree.5 State v. Gould , 241 Conn. 1, 24, 695 A.2d 1022 (1997).

In 2003, following their convictions, Taylor and Gould filed petitions for writs of

166 A.3d 652

habeas corpus. At that time, Taylor was represented by Attorney Peter Tsimbidaros and Gould was represented by Attorney Joseph Visone. The defendant was assisting Tsimbidaros and Visone as a private investigator. The defendant previously had worked as an inspector with the New Haven state's attorney's office. At some point, the defendant went to see Stiles, who was in a nursing home in Manchester undergoing rehabilitation for her legs, and indicated that he was investigating Vega's murder. They spoke briefly and, upon questioning by the defendant, Stiles told the defendant that she was not present at the scene at the time of the murder.6 On December 6, 2006, Stiles

174 Conn.App. 682

gave a signed statement to the defendant in which she indicated that her prior statements regarding the murder had been untrue.

Following the defendant's initial meeting with Stiles at the nursing home, the defendant continued to visit Stiles approximately once a week for "a year, maybe more." During those visits, the defendant came to the nursing home and checked to make sure he knew where Stiles was and kept her informed about the case. On two occasions during this period of time, the defendant drove Stiles to visit her mother. He also drove her to doctor appointments and bought her pizza and candy. On May 12, 2007, the defendant purchased a television and service plan for Stiles for a total of $204.43. He also gave Stiles money that she used to buy a stereo and told her that she might be able to obtain money in the future depending on the outcome of Taylor's and Gould's habeas trial.7

In 2009, Stiles left the nursing home and moved into a motel with her husband, where she lived for approximately one year. During this time, the defendant periodically visited the motel to make sure that Stiles still lived

174 Conn.App. 683

there and to tell her what was happening with the trial. When Stiles was living in the motel, the defendant took her to visit her mother. Stiles and her husband usually paid the monthly rent of $930 at the motel. There were "a couple of months," however, when the defendant helped to pay the rent.8 During this time, the defendant told Stiles that Taylor and Gould were trying to get a new trial, and that he did not think they were guilty of Vega's murder. According to Stiles, she and the defendant had become

166 A.3d 653

friends and they sometimes discussed their personal lives.

On August 3, 2009, Taylor's and Gould's habeas trial began. At that trial, Stiles testified that she had lied about seeing Taylor and Gould when she gave the two prior statements to the police in 1993, in her testimony at the probable cause hearing in 1993 and in her 1995 criminal trial testimony.9 On March 17, 2010, the habeas court, Fuger, J. , granted the habeas petitions, concluding that Taylor and Gould had met their burden of proof with regard to their claim of actual innocence.10 On July 19, 2011, our Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the habeas court and remanded the matters for a new habeas trial.11 Gould v. Commissioner of Correction , 301 Conn. 544, 571, 22 A.3d 1196 (2011).

174 Conn.App. 684

Once the habeas trial ended, the defendant no longer visited with or spoke to Stiles. This surprised Stiles because prior to the trial, their friendship had been "somewhat consistent" and he had told her that he would stay in touch with her. After the habeas trial in 2009, Stiles and her husband moved from the motel to an apartment in New Haven. On July 6, 2011, Stephen Coppola, a detective with the New Haven Police Department, and Edwin Rodriguez, an inspector with the chief state's attorney's office, went to see Stiles at her apartment in New Haven to verify her address for the second habeas trial that was coming up.12 She accompanied them to the New Haven Police Department, where she indicated that the defendant had "gotten inside [her] head" and overwhelmed her when he talked about the trial.13 Stiles indicated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 8 Agosto 2018
    ...solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. E.g., Mason v. State, 225 Md. App. 467, 477-81 (2015); State v. O'Donnell, 166 A.3d 646, 658-59 (Conn. App. 2017), cert. denied, 172 A.3d 205 (Conn. 2017); State v. Ellis, 957 P.2d 520, 521 (Kan. App. 1998); State v. Alhweiti, 2017......
  • State v. Berrios
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 5 Febrero 2019
    ...v. Griffin , 184 Conn. App. 595, 615–16, 195 A.3d 723, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 941, 195 A.3d 692, 693 (2018) ; State v. O'Donnell , 174 Conn. App. 675, 687–88, 166 A.3d 646, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 956, 172 A.3d 205 (2017). "For example, intent may be inferred from the events leading up to,......
  • State v. Liebenguth
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 17 Abril 2018
    ...induces or attempts to induce a witness to engage in the proscribed conduct." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. O'Donnell , 174 Conn. App. 675, 690, 166 A.3d 646, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 956, 172 A.3d 205 (2017).The defendant, however, has construed the state's charge as one of t......
  • Lederle v. Spivey
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 18 Julio 2017
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT