State v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 28 October 2003 |
| Docket Number | (SC 16784) |
| Citation | 832 A.2d 626,266 Conn. 440 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RYAN THOMPSON |
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Zarella, Js. Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were Vincent J. Dooley, senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Patricia M. Froehlich, state's attorney, and Roger Caridad, assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
Moira L. Buckley, deputy assistant public defender, for the appellee (defendant).
The issues in this certified appeal1 are: (1) whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court improperly permitted a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness, and that this evidentiary ruling constituted harmful error; (2) whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that certain improper remarks of the assistant state's attorney in rebuttal argument deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (3) whether the Appellate Court's judgment should nevertheless be affirmed, in accordance with our inherent supervisory authority over the administration of justice, on the ground that the prosecutor's misconduct in the present case was flagrant and deliberate.2 We conclude that: (1) although the trial court's evidentiary ruling was improper, it constituted harmless error; (2) the remarks of the assistant state's attorney did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial; and (3) the prosecutor's misconduct in the present case was not so offensive to the sound administration of justice that we should invoke our supervisory authority to affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court to the contrary.
The state charged the defendant, Ryan Thompson, with murder with the use of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a.3 After a jury trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of reckless manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-55 (a) (3) and 53a-55a.4 The trial court rendered judgment of conviction in accordance with the verdict. The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court. That court concluded that: (1) certain remarks of the assistant state's attorney in final argument deprived the defendant of a fair trial and, therefore, required reversal of the judgment; and (2) the trial court improperly permitted a witness to testify as to the credibility of another witness and that this constituted harmful error. State v. Thompson, 69 Conn. App. 299, 302, 797 A.2d 539 (2002).5 Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. Id., 328. This certified appeal followed.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On April 18, 1998, the victim, Robert McCaffery, and his best friend, John Jones, attended a party at the apartment of Ron Harding in the Moosup section of Plainfield. The defendant and four of his friends, Robert Comeau, Jared Gilkenson, Brandy Stebbins and David Stebbins, also attended, although Harding had not invited them. The defendant and his friends arrived in Brandy Stebbins' car, a purple Chevy Cavalier. The defendant was wearing a white Nike pullover jacket and a baseball cap. Gilkenson had brought the defendant's nunchakus6 to the party, which he at first wore in the front of his pants. Later, he showed the nunchakus to people at the party. During the party, an argument started among David Stebbins, the defendant and two brothers, Matt Benoit and Chris Benoit, which continued outside Harding's apartment. Sometime during the course of the argument, while they were still inside, Chris Benoit pushed David Stebbins, who then grabbed the nunchakus from Gilkenson, spun them around, and broke them on the stair railing. Harding, who had come outside because he had heard about the fight, broke it up and told the defendant and David Stebbins to leave. At the same time, and because of the fight, Mandie Green, one of Harding's roommates, told everyone that the party was over.
In the meantime, before the party had ended, Jones and the victim had decided to leave, but they heard the altercation out front, so they took an alternate route to their car, climbing down the fire escape and cutting through a neighboring yard. While they were walking, Jones suggested that they climb onto the roof of a nearby garage to smoke a cigarette and watch the argument. They climbed on the roof, but by then the argument appeared to have ended. Jones was kneeling in front, watching Harding's apartment, and the victim was either kneeling or standing behind and to the right of Jones, out of his field of view. Jones could see persons walking back inside Harding's apartment. He heard a "pop" coming from his left, but did not think it was significant. When Jones had almost finished his cigarette, he asked the victim if he was ready to leave, but received no response. He turned around to look at the victim and saw that he was lying on his back. He leaned over the victim and saw blood coming from the side of his head. When he tried to give the victim mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, the victim coughed up blood, and Jones began to yell for help.7
At roughly the same time that Jones and the victim were climbing onto the roof, Harding, who was standing at the end of the driveway with his friend Robert Latour, saw the defendant, David Stebbins and Gilkenson enter Brandy Stebbins' car. Harding then began walking back up the stairs to his apartment. Latour, who remained outside, saw the defendant and Gilkenson get into Brandy Stebbins' car. David Stebbins then walked over to the car, reached into it, walked over to Latour with a rifle, aimed the rifle directly at Latour's face, and told Latour that he would shoot him. Latour responded, "`Whatever.'" David Stebbins then returned to the car, handed the rifle inside the car, and entered the car. Latour then saw the car drive for a short distance and then stop. Latour next saw the defendant, wearing a white Nike jacket, exit the car carrying something that looked like a rifle,8 and run between two houses. Latour then heard a "pop," and heard Jones screaming from the nearby garage rooftop. In order to ascertain what had happened, Latour walked on the grass toward the garage roof where Jones and the victim were located. Jones was yelling that the victim had been shot and that someone should call 911. Latour went back into Harding's apartment and told the people inside to call 911.
Meanwhile, Harding also had heard the popping sound and came back down the stairs and outside.9 He saw a person, whom he could not positively identify, but who was wearing a white pullover jacket, running with his hands in front of him. That person ran to Brandy Stebbins' car and entered it, and the car drove off. Harding then saw Jones on a roof, waving his arms and yelling for someone to call 911. Harding climbed up to the roof, where he found Jones kneeling over the victim and screaming "`help me.'"
Officer Brandon Tyrrell of the Plainfield police department arrived at the scene, where Harding told him that the defendant, who had returned to the scene and was walking nearby, still wearing a white jacket, might have some information. Tyrrell drove over to the defendant and asked him about the party, and the defendant responded that he knew only what others had told him. When Tyrrell continued to question the defendant, the defendant repeatedly stated: " " Tyrrell told the defendant that he was not under arrest, and that Tyrrell just wanted to question him. Tyrrell then left the defendant with another officer and returned to the crime scene. The defendant then reappeared at the scene and began to yell that he had not shot anyone and questioned why anyone would believe that he had done so. Tyrrell and the other investigating officers asked the defendant to leave. When the defendant continued to cause a disturbance, Tyrrell arrested him for breach of the peace, brought him to the police station, and told him that he was under arrest for causing a disturbance, not for shooting anyone. The defendant, who appeared to be intoxicated, continued to insist that he did not shoot anyone and also asked Tyrrell if the "guy" was all right.
Meanwhile, detectives were sent to locate and interview the other occupants of Brandy Stebbins' car. At approximately 1:50 a.m. on April 19, Detective Martin Graham and Lieutenant William Holmes located David Stebbins at his home, along with Brandy Stebbins, Gilkenson and Stebbins' mother. David Stebbins accompanied Graham and Holmes to their cruiser, where he provided a written statement that he, Brandy Stebbins, Gilkenson and the defendant had left the party without incident. David Stebbins and Gilkenson also agreed to go the police station for administration of a gunshot residue test. When they entered the station, Graham heard the defendant, in an adjoining room, screaming, yelling and swearing. After administration of the test, the police drove David Stebbins home.
While Graham and Holmes were taking David Stebbins' statement, Detectives Richard Bedard and David LeBlanc interviewed the defendant at the police station. Immediately after the defendant had waived his Miranda rights,10 LeBlanc noticed a bite wound on the defendant's forearm, which the defendant told him he had inflicted on himself while he was in his cell. The defendant was agitated, and expressed concern that he had been arrested for shooting someone. After Bedard and LeBlanc assured him that he was under arrest for breach of the peace, not for shooting someone, the defendant agreed to speak to them. During the interview, the defendant asked them who had been hurt and how. When Bedard said that someone at the party had been shot, the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ayala
...statement during its closing argument, thus diminishing the importance of the statement to the state's case.8 See State v. Thompson , 266 Conn. 440, 456, 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that admission of challenged testimony was harmless error, in part, because state did not emphasize or re......
-
State v. Artis
...declined to follow the court's instructions, we presume that it heeded them.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 485, 832 A.2d 626 (2003). 2. The victim initially testified that he only had ''[a] couple beers.'' In light of his subsequent clarification, h......
-
State v. James G.
...impropriety] was so serious as to amount to a denial of due process . . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 478, 832 A.2d 626 (2003). Our determination in this regard requires us to consider: "(1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defen......
-
State v. East, AC 34715
...in the state's brief, our appellate courts have rejected arguments similar to those made in the present case. See State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 463-65, 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (prosecutor's comments that characterized defendant's version as fantasyworld akin to those encountered by Alice); ......
-
2003 Connecticut Appellate Review
...484, 825 A.2d 63 (2003). 63 264 Conn. 617, 668-72, 835 A.2d 895 (2003). Justice Katz dissented. 64 266 Conn. 364, 832 A.2d 14 (2003). 65 266 Conn. 440, 832 A.2d 626 (2003). 66 Rizzo, 266 Conn. 822; In re Devon B., 264 Conn. 572, 825 A.2d 127 (2003) (trial court abused its discretion in not ......
-
Prosecutorial Misconduct in Connecticut: a Review
...810 (2004); State v. Peeler, 267 Conn. 611, 841 A.2d 181 (2004); State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787, 835 A.2d 977 (2003); State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 832 A.2d 626 (2003); State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364, 832 A.2d 14 (2003); State v. Rizzo, 266 Conn. 171, 833 A.2d 363 (2003); State v. Fiel......