172 Conn. App. 843
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Petitioner (Antwon W.) was convicted in 2006 of multiple sexual‑assault counts for assaults on his 12‑year‑old cousin; trial counsel was Gregory St. John; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Petitioner filed a second amended habeas petition alleging multiple Strickland claims of ineffective assistance: inadequate voir dire (failure to ask about jurors’ history as victims), failure to investigate juror bias after a deliberation concern, failure to object to jury instructions on constancy of accusation, inadequate cross‑examination of the victim, poor plea advice, and inadequate investigation/call of exculpatory witnesses.
- Habeas trial evidence included petitioner’s testimony, defense expert Attorney Kaatz, and trial counsel St. John (for the respondent). The habeas court excluded juror testimony about deliberations via motion in limine.
- The habeas court denied relief, finding counsel’s performance not deficient or, alternatively, that petitioner failed to show prejudice under Strickland; petitioner obtained certification to appeal.
- Appellate court applied Strickland standards, declined to apply any cumulative‑error doctrine, and affirmed the habeas court on each argued ground.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire: failure to ask if jurors (or close others) were sexual‑assault victims | St. John was deficient for not asking the specific question, resulting in a biased juror | Trial and judge’s preliminary voir dire covered life experiences/bias; counsel’s questions were reasonable strategy | No deficiency: questions covered same territory; no Strickland performance failure |
| Post‑deliberation juror concern: failure to seek further inquiry | Counsel should have pressed for a Brown inquiry when juror L.B. referenced another juror’s “personal past” | L.B.’s statements were vague/internal; voir dire had elicited impartiality assurances; Brown inquiry not required here; counsel reasonably avoided intruding on deliberations | No deficiency: inquiry not obviously required; counsel’s restraint reasonable; petitioner’s claim speculative |
| Jury instructions on constancy of accusation evidence | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to instructions that allegedly allowed substantive use of constancy testimony | Instructions included limiting language that distinguished corroboration from substantive proof; even if imperfect, any overbreadth was minor and case had strong independent evidence | No prejudice under Strickland: instructions unlikely to mislead jury; conviction supported by independent corroboration |
| Cross‑examination of victim | Counsel failed to adequately impeach the victim on key points | Counsel’s choices were tactical; petitioner failed to brief or analyze specifics | Not reviewed — inadequate briefing by petitioner; claim abandoned |
| Plea advice | Counsel failed to advise petitioner to accept state plea offers | Petitioner expressed strong desire to go to trial; habeas court found petitioner unlikely to have accepted a plea even if advised | No relief: petitioner did not challenge habeas court’s finding on prejudice |
| Failure to investigate/call witnesses; DCF records | Counsel failed to locate or call exculpatory witnesses (D, "Tootsie", DCF records) | Petitioner did not produce these witnesses at habeas trial and/or failed to plead claims properly; claims abandoned or not proven | No prejudice or waived: absent witness testimony at habeas, prejudice cannot be shown; some claims not properly raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (2014) (juror testimony about deliberations is generally barred; distinction between extraneous and internal influences)
- State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 (1996) (limits constancy‑of‑accusation testimony to fact and timing; not substantive proof)
- Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (2012) (standard of review for habeas factual findings and mixed questions; deference to habeas court on credibility)