State v. McCoy
Decision Date | 07 May 2019 |
Docket Number | SC 19905 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Kenneth Lee MCCOY |
Daniel J. Foster, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, Maxine Wilensky, senior assistant state's attorney, and Mary Elizabeth Baran, former senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Palmer, McDonald, Robinson, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Vertefeuille, Js.*
In this appeal, the defendant, Kenneth Lee McCoy, challenges the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction rendered after a jury trial of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant contends that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that (1) he was not deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial improprieties, and (2) the trial court properly denied his motion for a new trial for lack of jurisdiction. We disagree but conclude that the form of the trial court's judgment is improper in that the trial court should have dismissed rather than denied the motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court with direction to render judgment consistent with this opinion.
The following underlying relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in the Appellate Court's decision. "During the fall of 2011, the victim, Dallas Boomer, saw both the defendant and Tramont Murray, his close friends, on a daily basis. The three men often conducted drug deals together out of rental cars .... During November, 2011, the defendant became estranged from both the victim and Murray ....
State v. McCoy , 171 Conn. App. 311, 312–13, 157 A.3d 97 (2017).
After the jury returned its verdict, but prior to the sentencing date, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. Id., at 323, 157 A.3d 97. At the sentencing hearing, the defendant sought to have the motion heard by the trial court; however, the parties and the trial court subsequently agreed to go forward with the sentencing and to hear the motion at a later date. Id., at 323–24, 157 A.3d 97. As a result, the sentencing hearing went forward, and the court sentenced the defendant to sixty years incarceration. Id., at 324, 157 A.3d 97.
Months after the sentencing, the defendant attempted to have his motion for a new trial heard. Because the defendant's sentence already had been executed, however, the court denied the motion without a hearing on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction. Id. The defendant then appealed from the judgment of conviction,1 asserting that the prosecutor had engaged in a series of improprieties that deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial and that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a new trial for lack of jurisdiction. Id., at 312, 157 A.3d 97.
The Appellate Court concluded that, regardless of any improprieties that may have been committed by the state during the trial, the defendant was not deprived of his due process right to a fair trial. Id., at 314–23, 157 A.3d 97. The Appellate Court also concluded that the trial court lost jurisdiction once the defendant's sentence was executed and, therefore, that the trial court did not improperly deny the defendant's motion for a new trial. Id., at 323–27, 157 A.3d 97. This certified appeal followed.2 Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant first claims that the Appellate Court improperly determined that he was not deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial improprieties committed during his trial. Specifically, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the prosecutor did not deprive him of a fair trial when she (1) violated a court order by attempting on three occasions to elicit inadmissible prior consistent statements made by Murray, and (2) asked the jury during closing argument to speculate about the contents of a conversation between Murray and his mother that was not in evidence. In response, the state asserts that the Appellate Court properly concluded that these claimed improprieties did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial.3 We agree with the state.
With respect to the defendant's claim that the prosecutor thrice violated the trial court's order related to the inadmissibility of Murray's prior consistent statements, the Appellate Court's decision sets forth the following relevant facts. (Emphasis omitted.) Id., at 315–16, 157 A.3d 97.
During the state's direct examination of Murray, after establishing that Murray had failed to identify the defendant as the shooter in his initial encounter with the police, the prosecutor engaged in the following colloquy with Murray:
Defense counsel did not object to this testimony.
After this testimony, the prosecutor committed the first of the alleged improprieties when she asked: " Id., at 316, 157 A.3d 97.
Later, during that same direct examination, the second alleged impropriety occurred when "the prosecutor asked Murray: ‘And let me just ask you this: when you spoke to the police again, what did you tell them with regard to who was the shooter?’ The court sua sponte excused the jury and addressed the prosecutor, stating:
" Id., at 316–17, 157 A.3d 97.
Finally, the prosecutor engaged in the third alleged impropriety related to prior consistent statements. This impropriety occurred when, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hazard
... ... 2 Consistent with Connecticut case law, we conclude that the trial court should have dismissed rather than denied the defendant's March 21, 2018 motion for acquittal and a new trial due to lack of jurisdiction. See State v. McCoy , 331 Conn. 561, 58687, 206 A.3d 725 (2019) ("a trial court loses jurisdiction once the defendant's sentence is executed, unless there is a constitutional or legislative grant of authority"). 3 Luginbuhl did not recall the exact amount of money stolen from the storage facility. She testified that ... ...
-
State v. Courtney G.
...of the curative measures adopted ... and the strength of the state's case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McCoy , 331 Conn. 561, 571–72, 206 A.3d 725 (2019). Ultimately, "[t]he issue is whether the prosecutor's conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resu......
-
State v. Knox
...not amount to invocation of right to counsel depending on circumstances), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. McCoy , 331 Conn. 561, 586–87, 206 A.3d 725 (2019). Here, the defendant explained to Brownell that he changed his mind and agreed to speak with him about the shooting bec......
-
State v. McCleese
...of Correction, is not within the jurisdiction of the sentencing judge or the Judicial Branch. See, e.g., State v. McCoy , 331 Conn. 561, 586–87, 206 A.3d 725 (2019) (clarifying and reiterating that "a trial court loses jurisdiction once the defendant's sentence is executed, unless there is ......
-
2019 Appellate Review
...201, 214-24, 202 A.3d 350 (2019). [11] 333 Conn. 225, 229-40, 215 A.3d 116 (2019). [12] 333 Conn. 88, 138-52, 215 A.3d 1104 (2019). [13] 331 Conn. 561, 206 A.3d 725 (2019). [14] Notice that Justice Vertefeuille replaced Justice Ecker in Leniart and McCoy, resulting in a 4-3 win by the State......