State v. Reynolds, 15258.
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Palmer |
| Citation | 264 Conn. 1,824 A.2d 611 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut, v. Richard REYNOLDS. |
| Docket Number | No. 15258.,15258. |
| Decision Date | 03 June 2003 |
Page 611
v.
Richard REYNOLDS.
Page 612
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 613
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 614
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 615
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 616
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 617
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 618
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 619
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 620
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 621
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 622
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 623
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 624
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 625
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 626
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 627
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 628
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 629
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 630
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 631
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 632
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 633
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 634
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 635
BORDEN, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA, LAVERY and FOTI, Js.
Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
William M. Bloss, special public defender, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant) on the proportionality review.
Michael E. O'Hare, assistant state's attorney, with whom were John A. Connelly, state's attorney, and Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Maureen E. Keegan and Susan C. Marks, supervisory assistant state's attorneys, Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state's attorney, Marjorie Allen Dauster, assistant state's attorney, and Bruce R. Lockwood, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state) on the proportionality review.
Page 636
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE FACTS ................................................................................639
II. GUILTY PHASE ISSUES ......................................................................643
A. Sufficiency of the Information .......................................................643
B. The Defendant's Challenge to the Panel's Interpretation of § 53a-54b(1)...............645
C. Motion to Suppress Statements ........................................................649
1. The Search .......................................................................653
2. The Arrest .......................................................................655
3. Miranda Violation ................................................................657
4. The Defendant's Claim of Involuntariness..........................................659
D. The Court's Limitation on the Defendant's Right of Cross-Examination..................661
III. PENALTY PHASE ISSUES .....................................................................663
A. Issues Concerning the Aggravating Factor Enumerated in § 53a-46a(h)(1) ...............663
1. Facial Constitutionality of § 53a-46a(h)(1) ......................................664
2. The State's Burden of Satisfying the "Same Felony" Element of
§ 53a-46a(h)(1)...................................................................667
3. The Right to a Jury Determination on the Existence of the Aggravating
Factor Enumerated in § 53a-46a(h)(1) .............................................675
4. The Sufficiency of Evidence of the Defendant's Attempt to Commit
the Crime of Sale of a Narcotic Substance During the Course of
Committing the Capital Felony ....................................................678
B. Issues Concerning the Aggravating Factor Enumerated in § 53a-46a(h)(4) ...............679
1. Evidentiary Insufficiency ........................................................679
2. Denial of the Defendant's Prepenalty Phase Motion to Dismiss the
Aggravating Factor Enumerated in § 53a-46a(h)(4) .................................684
C. The Court's Instructions on Reasonable Doubt .........................................687
D. Effect of the Jury's Invalid Finding as to the Existence of One Aggravating
Factor on the Jury's Finding as to the Existence of Another
Aggravating Factor ...................................................................689
E. Three Judge Panel ....................................................................691
F. Excusal of Juror for Cause ...........................................................694
G. The Role of the Jury as Sentencer ....................................................697
H. The Right to a Bifurcated Penalty Phase Hearing ......................................702
I. Issues Regarding the Mitigating Factors and Evidence .................................704
1. Evidence Establishing the Existence of One or More Mitigating
Factors ..........................................................................704
2. Proof of Mitigating Factors ......................................................707
3. Special Verdict Form — Mitigation ................................................707
4. The Cumulative Effect of the Mitigating Evidence as an Independent
Mitigating Factor ................................................................708
5. Cathall Mitigating Factors .......................................................709
6. The Defendant's Request to Present as an Independent Mitigating
Factor the Inappropriateness of the Death Penalty Under the
Circumstances of the Case ........................................................710
7. Mercy as a Mitigating Factor .....................................................712
J. Vagueness Challenge to § 53a-46a(d) ..................................................713
K. State's Use of Evidence Purportedly Admissible During the Guilt Phase
Only .................................................................................715
L. The Admissibility of Anthony Crawford'd Testimony ....................................716
M. Alleged Juror Misconduct .............................................................717
N. Preliminary Determination of the Evidentiary Sufficiency of the Aggravating
Factors ..............................................................................718
Page 637
IV. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT .................................................................719
A. References to Officer Williams' Family................................................723
B. Inviting the Jury to Ignore the Law ..................................................729
C. Expression of Personal Opinions and Beliefs During Closing Arguments..................741
D. Conclusion ...........................................................................749
V. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES .....................................................................750
A. Change of Venue.......................................................................750
B. The Trial Court's Denial of the Defendant's Postverdict Motions for the
Imposition of a Life Sentence and an Evidentiary Hearing in Connection
Therewith ............................................................................755
C. Mandatory Sentence Review ............................................................760
VI. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CONNECTICUT'S DEATH PENALTY
STATUTES .................................................................................761
VII. PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW ...................................................................762
PALMER, J.
Officer Walter Williams of the Waterbury police department was on patrol in the vicinity of Orange and Ward Streets in Waterbury in the early morning hours of December 18, 1992, when he was fatally shot in the head at point blank range by the defendant, Richard Reynolds, whom Williams had stopped for questioning. The defendant fled but was apprehended and arrested shortly thereafter and charged with one count of capital felony in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-54b (1)1 and one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a).2 A three judge panel (panel) consisting of West, Fasano and Keller, Js., found the defendant guilty of both counts and, thereafter, the trial court, Fasano, J.,3 conducted the penalty phase hearing before a jury pursuant to General Statutes
Page 638
(Rev. to 1991) § 53a-46a.4 At the conclusion of the penalty phase hearing, the jury
Page 639
returned a special verdict finding the existence of two aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. In accordance with the panel's finding of guilt and the jury's special verdict, the trial court rendered judgment of guilty and sentenced the defendant to death.5 On appeal to this court, the defendant raises a total of fiftytwo challenges to the judgment of conviction and to the sentence of death. We affirm both the judgment of conviction and the death sentence.
The panel reasonably could have found the following facts. In late 1992, the defendant, also known as "Kilt," resided with his girlfriend, Karen Smith, and her four children, in Smith's apartment on the second floor of 47 Wood Street in Waterbury. The defendant, a convicted drug dealer, was a member of a cocaine trafficking organization that used Smith's apartment to process and package crack cocaine (cocaine) for sale to street level dealers. Other members of the organization included its leader, Kneshon Carr, and Anthony Crawford, Robert Bryant and Terry Brown.
The members of Carr's organization were together at Smith's apartment early in the morning of December 18, 1992, preparing cocaine for sale. The defendant
Page 640
and Crawford were each given approximately 175 bags of cocaine, worth about $3500, for sale to an individual located at an apartment on Locust Street. The two men left Smith's residence and headed for Locust Street shortly before 4 a.m. Before leaving Smith's apartment, however, Crawford loaded a .38 caliber semiautomatic pistol and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rafael Medrano., 31271.
...may occur in the course of cross-examination of witnesses....” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 908, 124 S.Ct. 1614, 158 L.Ed.2d 254 (2004); see also State v. Hafner, 168 Conn. 230, 249, 362 A.......
-
Miller v. Barber, No. 455605 (CT 5/20/2005), 455605
...(2004); State v. Christian, 267 Conn. 710, 841 A.2d 1158 (2004); State v. Francis, 267 Conn. 162, 836 A.2d 1191 (2003); State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 908, 124 S.Ct. 1614, 158 L.Ed.2d 254 (2003); State v. Ferguson, 260 Conn. 339, 796 A.2d 1118 (2......
-
State v. Ceballos, (SC 16901)
...occasional use of rhetorical devices is simply fair argument." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 162, 836 A.2d 224 A reviewing court also should be mindful that the trial court views the proceedings in totality and, therefore, is in the un......
-
State v. James G., (SC 16967).
...have observed that prosecutorial misconduct may occur during the course of cross-examination of witnesses. E.g., State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 164, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, U.S. (72 U.S.L.W. 3567, March 8, 2004). We have emphasized that "[t]he touchstone of due process analysis ......
-
Miller v. Barber, No. 455605 (CT 5/20/2005), 455605
...(2004); State v. Christian, 267 Conn. 710, 841 A.2d 1158 (2004); State v. Francis, 267 Conn. 162, 836 A.2d 1191 (2003); State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 908, 124 S.Ct. 1614, 158 L.Ed.2d 254 (2003); State v. Ferguson, 260 Conn. 339, 796 A.2d 1118 (2......
-
State v. Ceballos
...occasional use of rhetorical devices is simply fair argument." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 162, 836 A.2d 224 (2003). A reviewing court also should be mindful that the trial court views the proceedings in totality and, therefore, is i......
-
State v. James G.
...have observed that prosecutorial misconduct may occur during the course of cross-examination of witnesses. E.g., State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 164, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, U.S. (72 U.S.L.W. 3567, March 8, 2004). We have emphasized that "[t]he touchstone of due process analysis ......
-
Commission on Human Rights v. BD. OF EDUC., No. 17014
...Thus, this legislative silence is, as it often is, ambiguous, and an unreliable indicator of legislative intent.46 See State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 79, 836 A.2d 224 (2003) ("[R]eliance on legislative silence is misplaced. It is a basic tenet of statutory construction that we rely on the ......
-
Irrelevant or immaterial questions
...75 Conn.App. 1 (2003); State v. Jolley, 656 N.W.2d 305 (2003). See also Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003); State v. Reynolds, 824 A.2d 611, 264 Conn. 1 (Conn., 2003); People v. Davis, 272 Ill.Dec. 397, 787 N.E.2d 212 (2003). Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., In......