State v. Harris
| Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | AC 42888 |
| Citation | 233 A.3d 1197,198 Conn.App. 530 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Jermaine HARRIS |
Vishal K. Garg, West Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, Stacey M. Miranda, senior assistant state's attorney, and Karen A. Roberg, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Lavine, Alvord and Harper, Js.
The defendant, Jermaine Harris, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder, robbery in the first degree, and carrying
a pistol without a permit.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted uncharged misconduct evidence, (2) his right to due process was violated when the prosecutor appealed to the emotions of the jurors and misstated evidence, and (3) his right to due process was violated when the state withheld material evidence. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In 2011, the defendant was a member of the G-Shine chapter of the Bloods gang in New Haven. On the night of July 30, 2011, the defendant met Tevin Williams, a fellow gang member and, together, they met the victim, Darryl McIver, who was a member of a rival gang, the Grape Street Crips. Together, the defendant, Williams, and McIver travelled throughout "the Hill" section of New Haven and committed three armed robberies.
During the first two robberies, the defendant and McIver brandished their guns while Williams searched the victims’ pockets and took whatever valuables were on their respective persons, including money and cell phones. The defendant was armed with a Hi-Point nine millimeter pistol. During the third robbery, McIver pistol whipped Telaso Telez after learning that he did not have any money. Following the third robbery, McIver mentioned that he recently had shot Jason Roman, a member of the Bloods gang who went by the nickname
"Scar." Shortly after that admission, the defendant pulled Williams aside to inform Williams that he was going to shoot McIver.
Later that night, the defendant and Williams followed McIver as he led them through the surrounding neighborhoods. Eventually, all three of them climbed over a perimeter fence onto commercial property on Ella Grasso Boulevard. Once on the property, McIver continued to lead the defendant and Williams, at which point the defendant drew his gun and shot McIver in the back. After shooting McIver, the defendant placed his gun on the ground, next to McIver's body, and then searched McIver's body for his gun. While the defendant was searching for McIver's gun, Williams picked up the defendant's gun, as the defendant had instructed him to do, and fled the scene. As Williams left, he heard two more gun shots.2 After shooting McIver again, the defendant searched for McIver's phone and left the scene.
The defendant and Williams reconnected at the home of the defendant's mother, which was located near the shooting of McIver. It was there that Williams returned the defendant's gun to him and that the defendant confessed to Williams that he had killed McIver in retaliation for McIver having shot Scar, their fellow gang member.
In early August, 2011, the defendant attended a meeting of two chapters of the Bloods at Jocelyn Square Park in New Haven. During that meeting, the defendant admitted to Luis Padilla, a fellow Blood, that he had killed McIver because McIver was "hard-headed." On August 15, 2011, the defendant was with Mickey Ferguson, a fellow Blood, at Ferguson's home, when he admitted to killing McIver.
The defendant was arrested on March 21, 2012, and charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, felony murder, robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, carrying a pistol without a permit, and criminal possession of a firearm. See footnote 1 of this opinion. The defendant elected a trial by jury and was tried on all charges, except criminal possession of a firearm. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict with respect to the charges before it, which resulted in a mistrial. The court, however, found him guilty of criminal possession of a firearm. The state retried the defendant for murder, felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit.
Prior to the start of the second jury trial, the state filed a notice of intent to introduce evidence of uncharged misconduct. On June 16, 2017, the court conducted a pretrial hearing pursuant to that notice. During that hearing, the state informed the court that it intended to present evidence of three robberies and three shootings in which the defendant was involved but was not charged. The state argued that such evidence was relevant to show identity, means, and motive, and that it would corroborate other crucial prosecution evidence. At the end of the hearing, the court noted that the defendant did not object to the evidence pertaining to the second and third shootings. The court then stated that it would hear an offer of proof during trial with regard to evidence pertaining to the first shooting. The court overruled the defendant's objection to the evidence of the Telez robbery, concluding that such evidence was probative.
During the defendant's second jury trial, the prosecutor presented evidence of three separate shootings that occurred after McIver's death, that allegedly involved the defendant, but with which he had not been charged. More specifically, the prosecutor presented evidence that the shell casings found at the scene of the other
three shootings matched the shell casings found at the McIver murder scene. The evidence was admitted at trial without objections.3
Through the testimony of Williams, the prosecutor also presented evidence concerning the three robberies in which the defendant participated with Williams and McIver but with which he was not charged. Specifically, Williams testified that he, the defendant, and McIver committed three robberies, prior to the shooting of McIver, because they were bored.4 As with the three shootings, the defendant did not object to the evidence admitted with regard to the first two robberies with which he was not charged.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder, felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit. Because the defendant was found guilty of murder, the court vacated his conviction of felony murder and imposed a total effective sentence of eighty years of incarceration.5 This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant first claims that the court improperly admitted various uncharged misconduct evidence, which deprived him of a fair trial. More specifically, he claims that the court improperly admitted evidence that he participated in two robberies that preceded McIver's
death and evidence that he participated in three unrelated shootings that all succeeded McIver's death. We disagree.
We begin with the relevant legal principles that direct our analysis. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daniel W. , 180 Conn. App. 76, 88, 182 A.3d 665, cert. denied, 328 Conn. 929, 182 A.3d 638 (2018).
It is well established, however, (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thompson , 146 Conn. App. 249, 259, 76 A.3d 273, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 956, 81 A.3d 1182 (2013). "To review claims articulated for the first time on appeal and not raised before the trial court would be nothing more than a trial by ambuscade of the trial judge." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rosado , 134 Conn. App. 505, 516 n.3, 39 A.3d 1156, cert. denied, 305 Conn. 905, 44 A.3d 181 (2012).
The defendant contends that the uncharged misconduct evidence "created a serious risk that the jury would conclude that [he] had a propensity for violence." The state argues that the defendant waived appellate review of the admission of evidence concerning the two uncharged robberies because the defendant's pretrial objection to Williams’ testimony was limited to the third robbery—the Telez robbery—and not all three robberies. In his reply brief, the defendant contends that he
objected to the entirety of Williams’ testimony, which included all three robberies.6 With respect to the evidence regarding the three shootings with which the defendant was not charged,7 the state argues that the claim regarding evidence of the August 1, 2011 shooting is not properly before this court because the defendant did not secure a trial court ruling on a challenge to the admission of such uncharged misconduct evidence and, thus, he has waived appellate review. In his reply brief, the defendant seems to argue that if the August 1, 2011 shooting is not properly before this court, it is because the state failed to make an offer of proof concerning any evidence that related to the incident. The defendant further argues that even if we find that his claim is unpreserved we should, nonetheless, exercise our discretion to review it because the court's error requires reversal under the plain error doctrine.8
As noted, prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Leniart
-
Stubbs v. ICare Mgmt., LLC
... ... 530 233 A.3d 1183 State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 617, 222 A.3d 105 (2019). Accordingly, we decline to review this claim. The judgment is reversed as to counts ... ...
-
State v. Lemanski
...that it likely affected the result of the trial." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Harris , 198 Conn. App. 530, 540, 233 A.3d 1197 (2020). With these principles in mind, we address the defendant's specific instructional claims in turn.AThe defendant first clai......
-
State v. Harris
...assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 198 Conn. App. 530, 233 A.3d 1197 (2020), is denied. MULLINS, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this ...