215 Conn.App. 322
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- On June 5, 2003 petitioner Jose Ayuso fired a .40 cal. Glock at an unmarked car occupied by three undercover Hartford officers; Officer Tishay Johnson suffered internal injuries (bruised liver, cracked rib).
- At trial Pleasant (passenger officer) testified he observed a small wound "where the bullet had impacted the bulletproof vest" Johnson was wearing; defense had inspected the vest pretrial and reported no visible hole or damage.
- Forensic review at the habeas hearing found no visible damage to the vest; the treating trauma physician nonetheless testified the injury was consistent with a bullet strike to the vest area.
- Petitioner was convicted (assault, attempt to assault, firearms offenses); appellate and collateral review followed.
- In habeas proceedings Ayuso alleged (1) prosecutor knowingly presented/failed to correct false or misleading testimony about the vest (Brady), (2) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (including failure to inspect vest, to present mental-health and corroborating witnesses, and failure to press a Morales claim about preservation of the vehicle), and (3) an evidentiary error excluding questioning of the prosecutor about what he should have known. Habeas court denied relief and certification; appeal dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Ayuso's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor knowingly presented/failed to correct false or misleading testimony about Johnson's vest (due process/Brady) | Pleasant falsely implied the vest had been struck/damaged; prosecutor knew or should have known and failed to correct, prejudicing verdict | Pleasant's testimony did not assert inspection or observable damage; any reference to the vest was inferential and incidental; even if false, no reasonable likelihood it affected the verdict because vest condition was not material | Testimony not false or substantially misleading; even assuming error, no reasonable likelihood of impact on verdict — claim fails; habeas court may have misstated its analysis but result affirmed |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to inspect/forensically test vest and for not presenting expert/witness evidence to support self-defense (psych testimony, Pinault) | Counsel failed to obtain and present evidence undermining state's theory (vest damage, prior threat testimony, mental-health evidence) and that prejudice likely changed outcome | Counsel made strategic decisions to avoid detracting from self-defense; defense inspected vest pretrial; treating physician's opinion that a bullet caused Johnson's injury undercut benefit of undermining vest; psychological opinions were based on evaluations 15+ years later; Pinault would only corroborate a threat but not show petitioner reasonably believed it was credible | No deficient-prejudice showing; even with additional evidence, jury would not likely find use of deadly force objectively reasonable — claim fails |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to raise Morales claim re: preservation of officers' vehicle | Counsel should have insisted on preservation/testing of the vehicle (trajectory, residue) and moved for remedies under Morales; failure harmed defense | Counsel inspected car in junkyard, used state trajectory/scene evidence at trial to challenge state's narrative; petitioner’s experts at habeas could only speculate about tests and results; record lacks proof that lost testing would have changed outcome | Petitioner failed to show materiality or reasonable probability of different result; Morales claim would likely fail on appeal under Golding’s reviewability prong — claim fails |
| Appellate counsel ineffective; habeas court exclusion of questioning prosecutor about what he should have known | Appellate counsel failed to raise viable direct-appeal issues (Rosa-related instruction/question-by-question invocation, Morales on vehicle preservation, prosecutorial vouching). Habeas court erroneously barred inquiry into what prosecutor should have known about vest | Appellate counsel made strategic choices about which issues to press; record inadequate for a Golding claim on Morales; prosecutor's closing argument was permissible inference-based comment on evidence; excluded inquiry was irrelevant because Ayuso alleged only knowing presentation (not should-have-known) | Appellate counsel not shown deficient or prejudicial; prosecutor's argument not improper vouching; exclusion of questioning was proper as not material to the pleaded habeas theory — claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Henning v. Commissioner of Correction, 334 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2019) (standard for materiality when prosecutor elicits or allows false or substantially misleading testimony and need for careful review of effect on jury)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s suppression of favorable evidence violates due process when material)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (Conn. 1995) (framework for evaluating due process when potentially useful evidence is not preserved and tailoring remedy to materiality/prejudice)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (criteria for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction, 336 Conn. 168 (Conn. 2020) (prosecutor must correct substantially misleading testimony even if witness lacked intent to lie)