State v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 20 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 17367.,17367. |
| Citation | 276 Conn. 452,886 A.2d 777 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Anthony E. PATTERSON. |
Elizabeth M. Inkster, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David I. Cohen, state's attorney, James Bernardi, supervisory assistant state's attorney, and Richard Colangelo, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
SULLIVAN, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.
A jury found the defendant, Anthony E. Patterson, guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a)1 and 53a-48 (a).2 In accordance with the jury's verdict and the jury's additional findings regarding the commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm, the trial court rendered judgment of conviction and enhanced the defendant's sentence pursuant to General Statutes § 53-202k.3 On appeal,4 the defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder; (2) declined to instruct the jury specially regarding the credibility of a jailhouse informant; (3) concluded that the jury's findings warranted the imposition of a sentence enhancement pursuant to § 53-202k; (4) permitted the state to adduce testimony concerning an out-of-court statement of the victim; and (5) declined to allow him access to certain mental health records of the jailhouse informant. Although we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder, we also conclude that the trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury specially on the credibility of the jailhouse informant and that that impropriety was harmful. We further conclude that the trial court improperly imposed a sentence enhancement pursuant to § 53-202k because the jury's findings were insufficient to support the imposition of such an enhancement. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the trial court's enhancement of the defendant's sentence and remand the case for a new trial on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder.
The following evidence was adduced at trial. On November 27, 2001, at approximately 10:45 p.m., police officers were dispatched to the Roodner Court housing complex at 261 Ellis Avenue in Norwalk to investigate a shooting. The officers entered through the front door of building sixteen of that complex and found the victim, David Rowley, lying at the bottom of a stairway that led to the third floor apartment of his girlfriend, Miriam Montanez. The victim had been shot several times in the chest and abdomen, and was unconscious when the police arrived. The victim could not be revived and died from the gunshot wounds.
The state elicited testimony from several witnesses about the events leading up to and culminating in the victim's death. Montanez testified that, on November 22, 2001, she and the victim were driving on South Main Street in Norwalk when she observed the defendant standing on the side of the street with a group of people that included Aki Johnson and Craig Holloway. Montanez recounted that, as they were driving past the group, she observed Johnson strike a person named "Curtis" on the head. Montanez then saw Curtis pull out a gun and shoot Johnson. According to Montanez, everyone on the street fled after the shooting, except for the victim, who got out of his vehicle, called an ambulance and attended to Johnson, who ultimately survived.
Montanez testified that the next day, as she and the victim were preparing to leave a store parking lot in Norwalk, they discovered that the victim's truck had been blocked in by two cars parked behind it. Montanez further testified that she had observed Holloway, Kevin Preston, Leon Hilliard and the defendant inside those two cars.5 According to Montanez, although the victim eventually managed to maneuver his truck around the two cars, his demeanor changed after the incident, and he appeared to be upset. Montanez asked the victim "what was wrong?" The victim replied, "they're trying to put this thing about [Johnson] on [me]." Montanez also testified that, on November 27, 2001, the day the victim was fatally shot, she and the victim had left the Roodner Court housing complex at approximately 6 p.m. to take a drive in the victim's truck. Upon returning home, Montanez went upstairs to her apartment while the victim parked his vehicle next to the sidewalk in front of Montanez' building. Montanez further testified that the victim had stopped in the parking lot for several minutes to speak with Jason Miller before proceeding up to her apartment.
Thereafter, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Miller knocked on the door of Montanez' apartment. Montanez' sister, Diana Ramos, who was living with Montanez at the time, answered the door, and Miller asked to see the victim, who by then was asleep on the living room couch. Ramos testified that she had invited Miller into the apartment. Ramos further explained that Miller woke up the victim to inform him that the police were "[m]essing" with his car. Miller left the apartment once he had awakened the victim.
Montanez was getting into the shower when Miller arrived and heard Miller speaking to the victim in a loud voice. According to Montanez, "[t]he way [Miller] was yelling [at the victim] made [her] suspicious" because she "knew that people were blaming [the victim] for the shooting of ... [Johnson], so [she] was a little nervous." Montanez also reported that, upon hearing Miller's voice, she "put [her] clothes back on and looked out the living room window and saw [the victim's truck], but not [any] cops." Montanez testified that, although she had told the victim that his truck seemed all right, he decided to move it anyway, just to be sure that it would not be ticketed or towed. A few moments after the victim left the apartment, Montanez heard several gunshots and ran downstairs with Ramos and Joel DeLeon, a cousin of Montanez who also was staying at Montanez' apartment. They discovered the victim's body at the bottom of the stairs. At that time, Montanez noticed that one of the doors to the building was propped open by a long, wooden stick.
Jenenene Addison, a resident of the Roodner Court housing complex at the time of the fatal shooting, testified that, at approximately 9:30 p.m. that night, she had seen the defendant and Miller standing in front of building seventeen of the complex. Addison testified that she had greeted the defendant and had asked to borrow $3 from him. Approximately one hour later, while standing outside building sixteen, Addison heard gunshots inside the building. Immediately after hearing the shots, Addison saw Miller come out of the building, alone, with his head down. Addison explained that Miller had walked directly into the parking lot and then to building fifteen. Addison also testified that she had not seen the defendant anywhere in the vicinity at the time of the shooting. Immediately after seeing Miller leave building sixteen, Addison walked over to that building, entered, and observed the victim lying in the first floor hallway.
Addison further testified that the defendant had come to her apartment to speak to her approximately seventy-five minutes after the shooting. Addison stated that the defendant was worried about her because someone had told him that she was "kind of upset that [she] may have seen what happened." The defendant asked her if she had seen the shooting, and Addison told him that she had not. The defendant then told Addison not to worry, and that everything was going to be all right. Addison testified that she always had had a friendly relationship with the defendant, and that they had not had any problems. Addison stated that, although she and the defendant were "not cousins ... that's how everybody is out there." Addison further testified that it was her understanding, based on a conversation that she once had had with Johnson, that the defendant and Johnson were, in fact, cousins.
The defendant was arrested on December 4, 2001, and charged in connection with the victim's murder.6 The defendant was unable to make bail and, therefore, was incarcerated pending trial. For approximately seven months following his arrest, the defendant shared a cell at the Cheshire correctional institution with Leonard McGahee.
McGahee testified that he and the defendant had had several conversations about the victim's murder and that the defendant had told McGahee that he had killed the victim.7 McGahee also stated that the defendant had told him "that, on a previous occasion, he was out with [Miller] and that there was a crowd and [the victim] had shot into the crowd" and wounded "one of his people."8
McGahee further testified that the defendant had told him that, after that shooting, the defendant had sought advice about what to do from "a partner of his" by the name of Bret. The defendant told McGahee that "he took the advice of his partner" and "handle[d] his business with [the victim]." In that regard, McGahee testified that the defendant also had told him that, on the night that the victim was fatally shot, the defendant and Preston had waited outside the side door of building sixteen of the Roodner Court housing complex while Miller lured the victim downstairs. When the victim appeared, the defendant shot him three times in the chest.
McGahee also explained that the defendant had confided in him that, after shooting the victim, the defendant and Preston fled the scene together in the defendant's truck. Miller fled the area in a second vehicle. According to McGahee, the defendant took Preston to a hotel to "get him squared away and calmed down"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ayala
...more, isn't probative of—or isn't relevant and isn't probative of anything. But then there's a subsequent case, [ State v. Patterson , 276 Conn. 452, 886 A.2d 777 (2005) ] while recognizing Duntz , distinguished it in that case, because ... the statements regarding fear were circumstantia......
-
State v. Vandeusen
...enhancement on her conviction of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree was improper because in State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452, 476-84, 886 A.2d 777 (2005), our Supreme Court held that § 53-202k does not apply to unarmed coconspirators. The defendant also claims that the senten......
-
State v. Medrano
...is given, regardless of whether the informant has received an express promise of a benefit. As we indicated in [State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452, 465, 886 A.2d 777 (2005)], the trial court should instruct the jury that the informant's testimony must 'be reviewed with particular scrutiny an......
-
State v. Turner
..., 95 Conn. App. 162, 166 n.3, 896 A.2d 109 (2006) (concluding that, even if new jury instruction rule announced in State v. Patterson , 276 Conn. 452, 886 A.2d 777 (2005), which was not of constitutional dimension, was retroactive, court would decline to review defendant's unpreserved evide......
-
2005 Connecticut Appellate Review
...Conn. 266, 869 A.2d 640 (2005). 89 269 Conn. 154, 847 A.2d 978 (2004). 90 273 Conn. 138 (2005). 91 271 Conn. 724, 859 A.2d 898 (2004). 92 276 Conn. 452, 886 A.2d 777 (2005). those two is Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Company,(fn93) invalidating a contract of adhesion releasing the snowtu......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...185 Conn. App. at 301. [464] 187 Conn. App. 752, 293 A. 3d 700, granting cert, in part, 331 Conn. 909. 202A. 3d 1023 (2019). [465] 276 Conn. 452, 886 A.2d 777 (2005). [466] State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93, 101-102, 25 A.3d 594 (2011). [467] Id. [468] Jones, 187 Conn. App. at 764. [469] Id. at 7......
-
Chapter 8 Informants
...issues: (1) "Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the special credibility instruction mandated in State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452, 886 A.2d 777 (2005), was not applicable?".... [W]e conclude that, although Patterson does not require a special credibility instruction if a jailho......
-
Developments in Connecticut Criminal Law: 2005
...for as yet unresolved charges, a jail transfer, and (fn93)92 Conn. App. 382 (2005). 94 Id. at 386. 95 Id. at 388-89. 96 Id. at 389. 97 276 Conn. 452 (2005). 98 Id. at 465. restoration of visitation privileges.(fn99) The Supreme Court noted that special instructions for particular witnesses ......