State v. Turner
| Decision Date | 31 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | SC 20360 |
| Citation | 340 Conn. 447,264 A.3d 551 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Elizabeth K. TURNER |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Ronald G. Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Terence D. Mariani and Cynthia S. Serafini, senior assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn, Ecker, and Keller, Js.
This certified appeal requires us to consider whether the defendant's convictions of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (1) and felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c should be reversed due to the trial court's references to larceny by false pretenses in its instructions to the jury on both offenses. The defendant, Elizabeth K. Turner, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming her conviction on sixteen counts,1 including three counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of felony murder, for her involvement in the murder of Donna Bouffard and her son, Michael Perkins (Perkins).2 The defendant contends that the trial court, by referring to larceny by false pretenses in its instructions, improperly presented the jury with a legally invalid but factually supported basis for finding her guilty of both robbery and felony murder. The Appellate Court rejected that claim, concluding that the trial court's instructions, although improper, provided the jury with a legally valid but factually unsupported basis for finding the defendant guilty and, as a result, did not impact her due process right to a fair trial. See State v. Turner , 190 Conn. App. 693, 709–15, 212 A.3d 715 (2019). The Appellate Court further held that the trial court's instructional error was harmless because the jury had a legally valid and factually supported alternative basis for finding the defendant guilty of robbery and felony murder. Id., at 711–15, 212 A.3d 715. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following relevant facts based on the evidence presented at trial. In February, 2012, Bouffard invited the defendant and her husband, Claude Turner, both of whom were homeless at the time, to live with her in her Watertown home. Bouffard's generosity was an extension of a kindness first offered by her daughter, Christine Perkins, who, after seeing the Turners at a Waterbury mall and recognizing Claude Turner from a Salvation Army food line, invited the Turners to stay with her and her mother. Bouffard provided the Turners with their own room on the second floor.
At the beginning of April, 2012, Bouffard received a disability settlement in the amount of $13,000. After using a portion of the settlement to pay various bills, Bouffard put the remaining $7000 in an envelope and hid it under her bed. When she noticed that some of the money was missing, she took the remaining cash and placed it in a safe in her living room. Bouffard accused the defendant and Claude Turner of the theft, but allowed them to remain in her home.
On April 19, 2012, Bouffard traveled to Vermont for a brief vacation with a friend. Prior to her departure, Bouffard served eviction papers on her daughter and her daughter's husband, David Ortiz, so that her son, Perkins, could move back into her home after having moved out following a dispute with Ortiz. While Bouffard was away, the defendant directed her husband to break into the safe with a crowbar in order to access the remainder of the money obtained from the disability settlement. Claude Turner complied, and the couple stole approximately $6000, all of which they used to purchase drugs. When Bouffard returned from Vermont and discovered the open, empty safe, she reported the larceny to the police. In early May, 2012, Bouffard asked the Turners to move out of her home. The couple refused to leave.
The relationship between the Turners and Bouffard deteriorated rapidly following the theft. In the ensuing months, the defendant expressed to her husband and their close friend, Anthony Acosta, that she wanted to put rat poison in Bouffard's and Perkins’ food. After her arrest, the defendant told the police that Bouffard frequently complained about being unhappy and that she found such complaints to be condescending. She also admitted that she and Bouffard argued frequently during this period.
On June 28, 2012, the defendant devised a new scheme to steal from Bouffard. She instructed her husband to go to Bouffard and tell her that the defendant had been arrested and that he needed $50 to bail her out of jail. Bouffard acquiesced and gave Claude Turner the money, which he and the defendant used to buy drugs. Later that same day, again at the direction of the defendant, Claude Turner returned to Bouffard and told her the bond was actually $100. Bouffard again gave Claude Turner $50, and the couple used the money to purchase more drugs.
Just after midnight on June 29, 2012, the Turners returned to Bouffard's home, where Perkins was asleep on a couch and Bouffard was awake in her room. According to the defendant's statement to the police following her arrest, Bouffard began "running her mouth" soon after they arrived. Hoping to avoid a confrontation, the defendant went upstairs and turned on a television in the room that she shared with her husband. Interested in what was going on downstairs, the defendant lowered the sound on the television so that she could listen in.
Soon thereafter, the defendant heard "banging" and "wrestling" noises. The defendant also heard Perkins yell, "[j]ust stop" and "[p]lease stop, I love you." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The defendant then started to walk down the stairs but stopped when she saw Claude Turner stabbing Perkins in the stomach. The defendant did not intercede, and, according to her statement to the police, it was at that moment that she realized that Bouffard was likely dead because the room to her door was closed despite Perkins’ pleas for help. After seeing the defendant, Claude Turner told her to return upstairs, which she promptly did.
Immediately after the killings, Claude Turner walked upstairs and handed Bouffard's purse to the defendant. The defendant went through the purse and removed $200, multiple gift cards, and the keys to Bouffard's car. The defendant then walked down the stairs, past the mutilated bodies of Perkins and Bouffard, and searched for the paperwork for Bouffard's car. The defendant and her husband then drove Bouffard's car to Waterbury, where they picked up Acosta and purchased marijuana and cocaine. The three then returned to Bouffard's home and used the drugs. At trial, the jury heard former testimony from Acosta that, while they were sitting in the Turners’ room, the defendant said that she regretted telling her husband to kill Bouffard and Perkins. When the defendant discovered an eviction notice while searching through Bouffard's belongings, she remarked to Acosta,
Over the next several days, the defendant, Claude Turner, and Acosta sold a variety of items they stole from the house, including Bouffard's camper, phone, and jewelry, and Perkins’ scooter, guitar, and a video game console. The defendant later admitted to the police that she and her husband had jointly decided to sell the various items for cash. The defendant also attempted to withdraw money from Bouffard's bank account using a forged check but was turned away by a skeptical bank teller. On Friday, July 6, 2012, one week after the murders, the defendant and her husband sold Bouffard's car for $400.
The defendant and her husband were ultimately arrested in Baltimore, Maryland, and the defendant waived extradition to Connecticut.3 The defendant was charged with sixteen offenses. Relevant to the present appeal, the defendant was charged, in the second case, with felony murder as to Bouffard and Perkins in counts one and two, respectively, and robbery in the first degree as to Bouffard and Perkins in counts nine and ten, respectively. At trial, the prosecutor argued that the defendant had engaged in a continuous sequence of larcenous conduct, beginning with the bail scheme and culminating in the theft of the victims’ property after the murders. At the conclusion of the state's case-in-chief, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the defendant did not plan or participate in the murder and, as a result, could not be guilty of felony murder or robbery. The prosecutor, in response to the motion, argued that the timing of the murders elevated both the bail scheme larceny and the larcenies committed after the murders to robberies. The trial court denied the motion.
At an on-the-record charging conference held the following day, defense counsel argued that the state's "continuing course of conduct" theory was inappropriate for closing argument on the felony murder counts because the bail scheme had ended prior to the use of force. The trial court disagreed, concluding that whether the bail scheme, as part of a continuous course of conduct, could serve as the predicate felony for felony murder was a question of fact for the jury. The trial court reasoned:
In its instructions to the jury on the counts of robbery and felony murder, the trial court defined the crime of larceny by false pretenses...
To continue reading
Request your trial