State v. Satchwell
| Decision Date | 28 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 15541,15541 |
| Citation | 244 Conn. 547,710 A.2d 1348 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Lloyd A. SATCHWELL. |
Neal Cone, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Denise B. Smoker, Deputy Assistant State's Attorney, with whom was John A. Connelly, State's Attorney, for appellee (State).
Before BORDEN, KATZ, PALMER, McDONALD and PETERS, JJ.
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Lloyd Satchwell, was convicted of four counts of arson murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54d, 1 and one count each of first degree arson in violation of General Statutes § 53a-111 (a)(1) 2 and conspiracy to commit first degree arson in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) 3 and 53a-111 (a)(1). The trial court rendered judgment sentencing the defendant to a total effective sentence of 120 years imprisonment with no possibility of parole. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to this court pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 51-199(b)(3). 4 On appeal, the defendant claims that he is entitled to a new trial: (1) due to alleged misconduct by the state's attorney; and (2) because the trial court permitted the state to introduce into evidence a videotape of the crime scene and slide photographs of the deceased victims, the prejudicial effect of which, he maintains, outweighed their probative value. We reject these claims and, consequently, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant's wife, Esmay Notice, owned a three story duplex located at 85 Crescent Street in Waterbury. 5 At all times relevant to this appeal, two families occupied separate apartments in the duplex: (1) Clarence Winston, Sr., and Barbara Winston, their three children, Tiana, Clarence, Jr., and Tarley, and Tiana's two children, three year old Tiana and eighteen month old Jostin; and (2) Dwayne Wilson and Laurie Mercer, and their six children.
In early 1993, Notice became upset with Wilson and Mercer because they were not making timely rental payments. Notice also was angry with the defendant because he had been collecting rent from the Winstons and not turning it over to Notice. Due to the difficulty that Notice was having in obtaining the rental payments, she was obliged to use her own savings to make the mortgage payments on the duplex. Unhappy with the situation, Notice resolved to have the duplex burned down in order to have it "out of [her] way," and to collect the proceeds of the insurance policy on the property. 6
In late April or early May, 1993, Notice sought the assistance of an acquaintance, Valerie Evans, in locating someone who would be willing to set fire to the duplex. In return for Evans' help, Notice promised Evans, who was unemployed, that she "would never [again] be out of work." Evans agreed to introduce Notice to Donnie Burton, who, Evans thought, might agree to set fire to the building.
Several days later, Evans introduced Notice to Burton. Notice explained to Burton that she was looking for someone to set fire to a house, and she offered Burton cash and crack cocaine if he would do it. When Burton asked whether the home was occupied, Notice responded that the tenants had been evicted. Notice also told Burton that the defendant would meet with Burton later that day.
That evening, the defendant and Evans met with Burton. The defendant asked Burton whether he "knew what was going on, if [Notice had] spoke[n] to [him] already." Burton responded affirmatively, and the defendant told Burton that he would be notified when it was time for him to "do the job."
Soon thereafter, Notice telephoned Evans, gave Evans the address of the duplex, and informed Evans that she was "ready to have the [duplex] burned down." The next day, Notice and Evans again met with Burton. Notice told Burton that she wanted the duplex burned "down to the ground" by the end of the month, and reassured him that she would make it worth his while. Burton, however, was noncommittal.
A short time later, Burton, concerned that the duplex might be occupied, proceeded to the address provided to him by Notice. Observing lights on inside the duplex and a leashed dog and a parked car outside, Burton concluded that the building was occupied. For that reason, Burton decided not to be involved in the plan to burn down the duplex.
Upon learning of Burton's decision, the defendant told Notice that he would set fire to the building. In preparation for doing so, the defendant obtained two one-gallon plastic containers and filled them with gasoline. The defendant also secured a homemade timing device that had been constructed from a "Jello" gelatin box and a book of matches. The defendant explained to Notice that he intended to use the device, along with a lit cigarette, to ignite the gasoline, which he planned to use as an accelerant. 7
Notice went to bed at approximately 10 p.m. on May 30, 1993. The defendant, who had been visiting a friend that evening, returned home between midnight and 1 a.m., awakened Notice, and informed her that he was going back out to burn down the duplex. Notice then went back to sleep.
The defendant returned shortly and informed Notice that he had poured gasoline on the front steps of the duplex and ignited it. Notice detected a slight odor of gasoline on the defendant, who showered and went to bed.
At approximately 3 a.m. on May 31, Wilson and Mercer, awakened by their intercom buzzer, proceeded to the first floor of the duplex and observed the front porch ablaze. Wilson and Mercer escaped through a rear door of the building with their children. Upon learning of the fire, Clarence Winston, Jr., and Tarley Winston also managed to escape through a rear exit, and Tiana Winston, their sister, jumped to safety from a rear second floor porch. Clarence Winston, Sr., and Barbara Winston, who, along with their granddaughter Tiana, were observed on the roof of the front second floor porch, refused to jump and, instead, reentered the duplex.
By the time members of the Waterbury fire department arrived, flames were visible in all of the windows of the duplex, and the intensity of the fire prevented the firefighters from entering the building. When they finally were able to gain entrance into the duplex, firefighters found the remains of Clarence Winston, Sr., Barbara Winston, and their two grandchildren, Tiana and Jostin.
At approximately 6 a.m. on May 31, Notice received a telephone call from a former tenant notifying her of the fire. Notice awakened the defendant, and they went outside to Notice's car. The defendant removed the two plastic containers from the car and placed them in a toolshed next to the garage. He also retrieved the timing device from the car's trunk, but inadvertently dropped the device on his way to the toolshed. The defendant and Notice thereafter drove to the duplex, informed the Waterbury police that they were the building's landlords and, at the request of the police, voluntarily proceeded to the police station, where they were questioned separately. Notice provided the police with a sworn statement implicating the defendant in the fire.
Later that morning, Waterbury police officers, accompanied by Notice, executed a search warrant at the home where she and the defendant resided. The police seized numerous articles of clothing and other items of personal property from the residence. The police also retrieved the two plastic containers from the toolshed, along with the homemade timing device that the defendant accidentally had left in his yard earlier that morning. Tests conducted by the state forensic laboratory detected the presence of gasoline in the two plastic containers and on a pair of men's black slacks seized from the defendant's residence. 8
The police also obtained a search warrant for Notice's car. Upon executing the warrant, the police detected a heavy odor of gasoline inside the vehicle. In addition, the floor mat and a piece of carpet retrieved from the front passenger side of the car tested positive for gasoline. Finally, the state tested wood samples taken from the front steps and porch of the duplex. These tests also revealed the presence of gasoline.
On the basis of his review of the fire scene and the evidence collected by the police, Waterbury fire marshal Anthony Zappone concluded that the fire had been set deliberately, and that it had spread from the front porch of the duplex, where an accelerant had been used, to the rear of the building. Autopsies performed on the four victims revealed that they had died of smoke inhalation.
Both Notice and the defendant were arrested and charged in connection with the arson. Prior to trial, Notice pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting first degree arson in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 9 and 53a-111 (a)(1), and to one count of conspiracy to commit first degree arson in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-111 (a)(1). After the conclusion of the defendant's trial, Notice, who had been the state's key witness against the defendant, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty-five years for her involvement in the arson. 10 Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant raises four claims of prosecutorial misconduct, each of which, he contends, deprived him of a fair trial in violation of his due process rights under the state and federal constitutions. 11 Specifically, the defendant asserts that the state's attorney improperly: (1) failed to disclose the full extent of the promise made by the state to Notice in return for her agreement to cooperate against the defendant; (2) vouched for Notice's credibility; (3) referred to evidence that previously had been ruled inadmissible; and (4) commented on the defendant's failure to testify. To the extent that the defendant did not preserve these claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aponte
...to the sound and well-established rules which the laws prescribe." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547, 577, 710 A.2d 1348 (1998) (Katz, J., concurring). In analyzing the defendant's claim, the issue is whether the prosecutor's conduct"`so infected the tria......
-
State v. Lemon
...take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify?"10 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547, 571, 710 A.2d 1348 (1998); accord State v. Marra, 222 Conn. 506, 533, 610 A.2d 1113 (1992); State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 72, 327 A.2d 576 The defendan......
-
State v. Ceballos
...remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547, 569, 710 A.2d 1348 (1998); State v. Cruz, 212 Conn. 351, 365, 562 A.2d 1071 (1989); State v. Ubaldi, supra, 190 Conn. 563. Moreover, "[i]n the absence......
-
State v. James G.
...remarks or questions can obviate any possible harm to the defendant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547, 569, 710 A.2d 1348 (1998); accord State v. Whipper, supra, 258 Conn. 270; State v. Ubaldi, 190 Conn. 559, 563, 462 A.2d 1001, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 9......
-
Prosecutorial Misconduct in Connecticut: a Review
...66 See State v. Lemon, 248 Conn. 65, 731 A.2d 271 (1999); State v. Andrews, 248 Conn. 1, 726 A.2d 104 (1999); State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547, 710 A.2d 1348 (1998); State v. Haase, 243 Conn. 324, 702 A.2d 1187 (1997); State v. Pouncey, 241 Conn. 802, 699 A.2d 901 (1997); State v. Correa, ......