State v. Jackson

Decision Date17 April 2012
Docket NumberNo. 18194.,18194.
Citation40 A.3d 290,304 Conn. 383
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. John JACKSON.

304 Conn. 383
40 A.3d 290

STATE of Connecticut
v.
John JACKSON.

No. 18194.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Jan. 12, 2012.Decided April 17, 2012.


[40 A.3d 295]

James B. Streeto, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Raheem L. Mullins, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Michael Dearington, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH, HARPER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.

ROGERS, C.J.

[304 Conn. 387] The defendant, John Jackson, was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a. The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction directly to this court 1 claiming that the trial court improperly: (1) denied his motion to suppress certain evidence seized by the police without a search warrant; (2) denied his motion to preclude certain evidence that the state had disclosed in an untimely manner in violation of General Statutes § 54–86k; (3) denied his motion to suppress certain statements that he gave to the police; and (4) denied his request to give an instruction to the jury on third party culpability. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant and the victim, Desti Parnell, had a son, Devon, who was six years old in 2004. The victim and Devon lived on the first floor of an apartment building at 672 Legion Avenue in New Haven. In the spring of 2004, the victim permitted the defendant, with whom she was no longer romantically involved, to move into her apartment. The defendant agreed that he would move out of the apartment on July 20, 2004.

On Monday, July 19, 2004, the victim spent the night at the house of her boyfriend, Lawrence Jackson (Jackson),2 while her son was out of state on vacation. On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, Jackson drove the

[40 A.3d 296]

victim back to her apartment at approximately 2:30 p.m. and then went to work. At about 4:30 p.m., the victim's upstairs neighbor, Inez Alvarez, went to the victim's apartment [304 Conn. 388] to borrow some cleaning supplies. After Alvarez obtained the supplies, she and the victim stood in the common hallway talking and the defendant walked past them into the victim's apartment. Alvarez then returned to her own apartment.

About fifteen minutes later, Alvarez' niece, who was staying with her, told Alvarez that she heard someone screaming inside the apartment building. Alvarez went with her niece to the top of the staircase leading down to the first floor to determine the source of the screaming. After the screaming stopped, Alvarez heard the victim say, “Don't do this,” followed by the defendant saying, “Get the fuck off me.” Believing that the victim and the defendant were just having an argument, Alvarez returned to her apartment. Approximately five minutes later, Alvarez returned to the hallway and heard the victim say, “Oh my God, oh my God.” Alvarez, who was by that time “freaked ... out” and “panicking,” gathered the cleaning supplies that she had borrowed from the victim, went down to the victim's apartment and knocked on the door. She initially heard someone moving around inside the apartment, but it then became quiet. Alvarez then returned to her apartment. She called the victim's cell phone several times that evening, but the victim did not answer. That night close to midnight, Alvarez heard the light sensor click on in the hallway downstairs, indicating that someone had entered the hallway.

At 2:10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, the defendant checked into the Carter Hotel in New York City, registering under the name Shawn Stokes. Later that day, at about 8:48 p.m., he jumped out of the hotel window in an attempt to kill himself. He landed on a third floor roof, three stories below his room. He survived, but broke both of his legs and one of his arms. He was transported to St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City for treatment.

[304 Conn. 389] Meanwhile, the victim had failed to appear at her job on the afternoon of Wednesday, July 21, 2004. When Jackson heard about the defendant's suicide attempt and learned that the victim had not gone to work, he became concerned about her welfare. In the early morning hours of July 22, he went to the victim's apartment, knocked on the door and windows, and tried unsuccessfully to open them. There was no response from anyone inside the apartment. Jackson then rang the doorbell of one of the victim's neighbors, Tamara Moore, who helped Jackson in his attempts to rouse the victim. When the victim failed to respond, Jackson called the police.

New Haven police and firemen arrived at the scene within minutes of Jackson's telephone call. One of the firemen entered the victim's apartment through an unlocked window and opened the door for the police officers, who discovered the victim's body in the bedroom of the apartment. The victim's wrists and ankles had been tied together behind her back with an electronic cable. Her shirt had been pulled below her chest, her skirt had been pulled up to her waist, and her underwear had been pulled down and completely off one leg. The victim had been stabbed multiple times in the forehead, ears, jaw, left cheek and rear left shoulder. She had defensive knife wounds to her hands and wrists, and her right arm was broken. The victim had been strangled and her skull had been shattered with a blunt instrument, leaving several pieces of the

[40 A.3d 297]

skull on the bedroom floor.3 A knife and a hammer, both [304 Conn. 390] covered with the victim's blood, were found on her bed. The defendant's semen was later found in vaginal swabs taken from the victim and on the rug under the victim's body.

The defendant subsequently was charged with and convicted of the victim's murder. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

I

We first address the defendant's claim that pursuant to the fourth amendment of the United States constitution 4 and article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut,5 the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain evidence, namely, a belt and four socks belonging to him that were seized by the police at the scene of his attempted suicide at the Carter Hotel in New York City. We conclude that the trial court properly [304 Conn. 391] determined that the defendant had abandoned his expectation of privacy with respect to the seized items and, accordingly, that it properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress.

The record reveals the following additional facts relevant to our resolution of this issue that either were found by the trial court or are undisputed. At approximately 8:48 p.m. on July 21, 2004, Kevin Neafsey, a police officer with the New York City police department, received an emergency dispatch advising him of a possible suicide jumper at the Carter Hotel. Upon his arrival at the hotel, hotel personnel brought him and two other police officers to the defendant's room and opened the door for them. Neafsey gathered the items of clothing that he found in the room, including a pair of pants with the belt still on them, and placed them in a brown paper bag for safekeeping. Neafsey

[40 A.3d 298]

brought the bag containing the clothing to the police station, where it was placed in a locked property locker.

On the basis of their discussions with Jackson and Alvarez at the scene of the victim's murder, the New Haven police had identified the defendant as a suspect in the killing. On the afternoon of Thursday, July 22, 2004, Detectives Lawrence Mazzola and Herbert Johnson and Sergeant Moller 6 of the New Haven police department traveled to New York City to investigate whether the person who had attempted suicide at the Carter Hotel the previous day was the defendant. The officers first went to a police station and met with the New York City police detectives who were investigating the defendant's attempted suicide. At approximately 5:30 p.m., the New Haven police officers went to the defendant's room at the Carter Hotel, where New York City police officers were already present. Mazzola looked out of the window and saw clothing and footwear[304 Conn. 392] on the roof in the area where the defendant had fallen some twenty-one hours earlier. He then went down to the third floor, gained access to the rooftop through one of the hotel rooms, and seized the items, including four socks.7

The New Haven police officers then went to St. Vincent's Hospital to question the defendant. Johnson asked the defendant if he knew why he was in the hospital, and the defendant responded that he wanted to die, that “no one cares,” and that he had nothing to live for.8 Johnson also questioned the defendant about his identity and told him about the murder. The defendant ultimately admitted that his name was not Shawn Stokes, but denied knowing about the murder. The interview lasted approximately one hour and the defendant appeared to understand the nature of the conversation.

After leaving the hospital, the police officers went to the New York City police station where the items taken from the defendant's hotel room were being held. The New York City police gave the items to the New Haven police, who brought them back to the New Haven police department. Thereafter, the New Haven police obtained a search warrant for the forensic testing of reddish-brown stains that had been found on the belt seized from the defendant's hotel room and the socks taken from the roof where he fell. The tests revealed that the [304 Conn. 393] substances on the belt and the socks contained DNA consistent with the victim's DNA profile.9

At trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the items of evidence seized in his hotel room and from the rooftop on the ground that they had been seized without a search warrant in violation of his constitutional

[40 A.3d 299]

rights. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion, at which the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • State v. Ashby
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 6, 2020
    ...claims under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Schovanec , supra, 326 Conn. at 320–23, 163 A.3d 581 ; State v. Jackson , 304 Conn. 383, 424, 40 A.3d 290 (2012) ; see also State v. James , 141 Conn. App. 124, 137, 60 A.3d 1011, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 932, 64 A.3d 331 (2013) ; cf......
  • State v. Lyons
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 2021
    ...basis.... The burden of proving the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy rests [with] the defendant.... State v. Jackson , 304 Conn. 383, 395, 40 A.3d 290 (2012)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Houghtaling , supra, 326 Conn. at 341, 163 A.3d 563 ; see also Simmons......
  • State v. Sayles
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 2021
    ..., 268 Conn. 575, 585–86, 848 A.2d 1183, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 957, 125 S. Ct. 409, 160 L. Ed. 2d 320 (2004) ; see State v. Jackson , 304 Conn. 383, 394–95, 40 A.3d 290 (2012) ; State v. Curet , 200 Conn. App. 13, 25, ––– A.3d ––––, cert. granted on other grounds, 335 Conn. 969, 240 A.3d 28......
  • State v. Campbell
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 26, 2018
    ...that the trial court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jackson , 304 Conn. 383, 394, 40 A.3d 290 (2012). As we already have explained, the trial court rested its decision finding the defendant competent in part on the fac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Litigating miranda rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • April 1, 2022
    ...this does not render a person in custody for Miranda purposes. People v. Vasquez , 913 N.E.2d 60, 65 (Ill. 2009); State v. Jackson , 40 A.3d 290 (Conn. 2012). LITIGATING MIRANDA RIGHTS §10:07 Suppressing Criminal Evidence 10-8 PR A CTICE P OINT : When your inmate-client is questioned by law......
  • Litigating miranda rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...this does not render a person in custody for Miranda purposes. People v. Vasquez , 913 N.E.2d 60, 65 (Ill. 2009); State v. Jackson , 40 A.3d 290 (Conn. 2012). §10:07 Objective, Reasonable Person Standard In determining whether a person is “in custody,” the question is whether, under the tot......
  • Litigating Miranda Rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • August 4, 2016
    ...this does not render a person in custody for Miranda purposes. People v. Vasquez , 913 N.E.2d 60, 65 (Ill. 2009); State v. Jackson , 40 A.3d 290 (Conn. 2012). §10:07 Objective, Reasonable Person Standard In determining whether a person is “in custody,” the question is whether, under the tot......
  • Litigating Miranda Rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • August 4, 2017
    ...this does not render a person in custody for Miranda purposes. People v. Vasquez , 913 N.E.2d 60, 65 (Ill. 2009); State v. Jackson , 40 A.3d 290 (Conn. 2012). §10:07 Objective, Reasonable Person Standard In determining whether a person is “in custody,” the question is whether, under the tot......
  • 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