160 Conn.App. 757
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 1979 three armored‑car guards were murdered; Couture and codefendant Pelletier were implicated by physical evidence (weapons, stolen money, matching shell casings) found in Couture’s home.
- Couture was convicted in a 1981 trial (Couture I), but the conviction was reversed for prosecutorial improprieties during summation.
- A second trial (Couture II) ended in mistrial; a pre‑retrial motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy was denied by Judge Glass, who found the prosecutor intended to secure a conviction, not to provoke a mistrial.
- After a third trial (Couture III) Couture was convicted of three counts of felony murder; that conviction was affirmed on appeal.
- In 2009 Couture filed a habeas petition alleging (inter alia) appellate ineffective assistance for failing to raise a double jeopardy claim and a freestanding double jeopardy claim; the habeas court denied relief (except restoring sentence review), and Couture appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Couture) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a double jeopardy claim on direct appeal | Williams should have argued that prosecutorial summation in Couture I was intended to goad the defense into a mistrial (Oregon v. Kennedy test), barring retrial | Counsel reasonably omitted a weak double jeopardy issue as tactical; prior findings (Judge Glass) and precedent made success unlikely | Denied; counsel’s omission was a reasonable tactical decision and did not fall below Strickland standards |
| Whether a freestanding double jeopardy claim bars retrial | Couture contends the prosecutor’s conduct in Couture I should have barred retrial under Kennedy | The claim was previously litigated and Judge Glass’s factual finding on intent is preclusive; res judicata bars relitigation | Denied; habeas court correctly dismissed the freestanding claim on res judicata grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial only where prosecution intended to provoke a mistrial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Couture, 218 Conn. 309 (Conn. 1991) (affirming Couture’s conviction after third trial)
- State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530 (Conn. 1984) (Couture I; reversing first conviction for prosecutorial improprieties)
- State v. Butler, 262 Conn. 167 (Conn. 2002) (explaining Kennedy intent requirement and distinguishing harassment standard)
- State v. Pelletier, 209 Conn. 564 (Conn. 1989) (codefendant’s appeal rejected; similar double jeopardy argument treated as weak)
- Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 594 (Conn. 2007) (res judicata and collateral estoppel principles)