State v. Herring
| Decision Date | 14 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 13238,13238 |
| Citation | 210 Conn. 78,554 A.2d 686 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Perry Lee HERRING. |
Jon L. Schoenhorn, with whom, on the brief, was Sharon M. Elias, law student intern, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Herbert G. Appleton, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, GLASS, COVELLO and HULL, JJ.
The Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), is designed to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of criminal charges pending in one state against a prisoner incarcerated in another state. General Statutes § 54-186, Article I. 1 The principal issue before us is whether an unreasonable delay by the custodial state in notifying a prisoner of outstanding detainers, 2 and in processing his request for their prompt disposition, unconditionally requires that the demanding state discharge any informations on which the detainers were based. In this case, prosecutorial authorities in Connecticut lodged two detainers based on untried murder informations against the defendant, Perry Lee Herring, who was then incarcerated in New Jersey. As amended at trial, the first information accused him, in two counts, of having committed the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a and 53a-48(a), 3 in connection with the death of Henry J. "Rico" Littman. The second amended information, also in two counts, accused him of having committed the crimes of murder and felony murder, in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a and 53a-54c, 4 in connection with the death of Donald Gore. Over the defendant's objection, the two informations were consolidated for trial. After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of felony murder in connection with Gore's death and of being an accessory to the murder of Littman. He appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering him to serve a total effective sentence of fifty years to life.
The defendant has raised six issues on his appeal. He maintains that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion for dismissal of the charges despite unexcused delay in the custodial state's processing of his request for final disposition of the detainers lodged against him; (2) denying his motion for severance of the two murder charges; (3) locking the courtroom during delivery of the court's instructions to the jury; (4) failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included charge of manslaughter on the Littman murder; (5) instructing the jury on remarks of the defense counsel; and (6) limiting the defendant's cross-examination of a witness. We find no error.
The defendant claims that Connecticut's enactment of the IAD mandates this state's dismissal of the criminal charges lodged against him because, in New Jersey, where he was incarcerated, prison officials unreasonably delayed both in providing him with IAD forms requesting final disposition of the charges covered by these detainers and in forwarding his request to Connecticut. Because officials of New Jersey, the custodial state, "act as agents of the demanding state for purposes of the IAD"; State v. Braswell, 194 Conn. 297, 305, 481 A.2d 413 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1112, 105 S.Ct. 793, 83 L.Ed.2d 786 (1985); their delay, according to the defendant, required dismissal of the Connecticut murder charges against him.
The facts underlying the defendant's claim are undisputed. On February 28, 1986, a New Jersey court convicted, sentenced and immediately imprisoned the defendant for a crime committed in that state. Aware of pending Connecticut charges, the defendant, in early April, 1986, forwarded to the appropriate prison officials at Trenton, where he was then imprisoned, his request for a speedy disposition of these detainers. Although the New Jersey officials duly contacted the Connecticut authorities to inquire about outstanding charges and, in timely fashion, received the necessary information from Connecticut, the prison authorities failed to provide the relevant official IAD forms to the defendant until August 18, 1986, some four months after his initial inquiry. Part of this delay was attributable, the trial court found, to the fact that an outstanding misdemeanor charge in New Jersey was not disposed of until June 16, 1986. Even if the New Jersey charge had to be resolved before the defendant could be tried in Connecticut; General Statutes § 54-186, Article VI(a); United States v. Mason, 372 F.Supp. 651, 653-54 (N.D. Ohio 1973); 5 there remained an unexcused period of two months in providing the defendant with the official forms.
Within eight days of their belated forwarding of the official forms to the defendant, the New Jersey prison officials received them back, appropriately completed. After another delay of four months, these officials forwarded the defendant's request for speedy disposition of charges to Connecticut. 6
Connecticut authorities received notification of the defendant's request on November 21, 1986. He was brought to trial 109 days later, on March 9, 1987. The defendant filed a motion, in the trial court in this state, for dismissal of the charges against him because of alleged violations of Article III of the IAD. In accordance with our holding in Giardino v. Bourbeau, 193 Conn. 116, 126, 475 A.2d 298 (1984), only a court in this state, where the underlying charges had been filed, had the power to consider their dismissal. After a hearing, the trial court held that the prosecuting authorities in Connecticut had complied with the requirement of Article III(a) of the IAD that a prisoner be tried "within one hundred eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction ... his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information or complaint...." General Statutes § 54-186, Article III(a). The court further found that, although the New Jersey prison officials had concededly delayed in complying with the requirements of subsections (b), (c) and (d) of Article III of the IAD, their delay had "resulted from clerical inattention ... because of budget restrictions [that caused] backlogs in the New Jersey correction system." Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the actions taken in New Jersey were "as prompt as necessary" under the IAD.
The defendant makes a three part claim in support of his contention that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the informations against him because of the extensive delays of the New Jersey prison authorities in processing his IAD request for prompt disposition of his Connecticut charges. First, he claims that the trial court erred in failing to hold that the New Jersey authorities had a duty to inform him of the detainers lodged against him immediately upon his incarceration in February, 1986, rather than after disposition of his remaining New Jersey charge in June, 1986. Second, although he does not contest the trial court's factual finding that any delay by the New Jersey prison authorities resulted from clerical inadvertance and systemic backlogs, he challenges the court's legal conclusion that such conduct complied with IAD requirements for prompt action by custodial authorities. Third, he maintains that, because of the overall delays that occurred in his effort to secure prompt disposition of his Connecticut charges, the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charges against him. In our view of this case, we need not resolve the first of these claims, because the delays that ensued in New Jersey after June, 1986, were sufficiently egregious to trigger an inquiry into whether dismissal of the defendant's Connecticut charges was required. We conclude nonetheless that, in the circumstances of this case, the trial court was justified in not ordering such dismissals.
A review of the legal principles that govern the IAD is necessary to provide a context for the defendant's claims. Because the IAD is an interstate compact that the federal Congress has sanctioned, we must interpret its provisions in accordance with federal law. Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 3403, 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985); Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 438, 442, 101 S.Ct. 703, 706, 709, 66 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981); State v. Braswell, supra, 194 Conn. at 304, 481 A.2d 413. In searching for the applicable federal law, we may, however, look to relevant decisions in both federal and state courts. State v. Braswell, supra.
Article III of the IAD governs inmate requests for a prompt disposition of outstanding detainers. The centerpiece of Article III is subsection (a), which states that a prisoner "shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information or complaint...." General Statutes § 54-186, Article III(a). Failure to comply with Article III(a) mandates dismissal with prejudice of the underlying charges. General Statutes § 54-186, Article V(c); 7 United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 364-65, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1849, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978). In State v. Braswell, supra, 194 Conn. at 305, 481 A.2d 413, we interpreted the 180 day provision to require the demanding state to "bring the prisoner to trial within 180 days of the date on which the demanding state receives the prisoner's request for final disposition and notice of place of imprisonment." (Emphasis added.) The trial court therefore correctly held that the prosecutorial authorities in this state had complied with the 180 day requirement of Article III(a) by bringing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. WILLIAM C.
...records confidential against a defendant's rights under the confrontation clause is well recognized. See, e.g., State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78, 108-109, 554 A.2d 686, cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S. Ct. 3230, 106 L. Ed.2d 579 (1989). The test and the associated burdens imposed on a defen......
-
State v. Davis, No. 17829.
...even with proper instructions, could not treat them separately." [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]); State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78, 97, 554 A.2d 686 ("[w]hile any murder involves violent and upsetting circumstances, it would be unrealistic to assume that any and all suc......
-
State v. Grant
...access to the witness' records lies in the court's sound discretion, which we will not disturb unless abused. State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78, 109, 554 A.2d 686 (1989); State v. Kelly, 208 Conn. 365, 380, 545 A.2d 1048 (1988)." State v. D'Ambrosio, 212 Conn. 50, 55-59, 561 A.2d 422 (1989), c......
-
State v. Smith
...request for a charge on the lesser included offense. State v. Montanez, 219 Conn. 16, 22-23, 592 A.2d 149 (1991); State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78, 106, 554 A.2d 686, cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S.Ct. 3230, 106 L.Ed.2d 579 (1989). "[T]he jury's role as fact-finder is so central to our jur......
-
Developments in Connecticut Criminal Law: 1988-89
...18 Conn. App. 104, 556 A.2d 1030 (1989). 43. Id. at 112-13,115 n.5. 44. Id. at 112 n.3. 45. 209 Conn. 458, 551 A.2d 1231 (1988). 46. 210 Conn. 78, 554 A.2d 686, cert. denied, U.S. 1109 S.Ct. 3230 (1989). 47. 19 Conn. App. 111, 562 A.2d 43 (1989). 48. 204 Conn. 714, 529 A.2d 1260 (1987). 49.......