Elsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 10 A.3d 578

Terance Elsey seeks habeas corpus relief from a Connecticut judgment imposing a 30-year term (suspended after 15 years) for arson, conspiracy to commit arson, two counts of attempted assault, two counts of conspiracy to commit assault, and three counts of reckless endangerment; direct appeal upheld convictions but vacated duplicate conspiracy sentences.
Evidence at trial included a car chase ending in Hartford, eyewitnesses linking a black Pontiac Grand Am to the crime, and physical evidence from the car and scene (glasses, phones, fingerprints, shell casings, bullets); neighbors and witnesses observed the car and shooter activity.
Twelve days after the shooting, authorities found in Elsey’s home items connected to his cell phone, including an image of Elsey wearing wire rims and an unused pistol permit form; evidence suggested multiple guns were involved.
Police recovered a lighter, a champagne bottle with gasoline, and multiple shell casings at the scene; latent fingerprints on the car matched Elsey’s known fingerprints and the gasoline cap was missing.
Elsey’s habeas petition asserted Brady violations (suppressed exculpatory information) and ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the habeas court denied relief, and the appellate court reviews de novo as to Brady issues but defers to the habeas court on fact-finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady violation for suppressed witness modification	Elsey argues Stephens’ pretrial sentence modification was suppressed and impeachment evidence.	State maintains no implied agreement existed; suppression was not material.	No material Brady violation; suppression was not material to the verdict.
Ineffective assistance—investigation into Stephens	Counsel failed to investigate Stephens and seek continuance to discover the modification.	Investigation was sufficiently thorough; lack of discovery did not prejudice.	No prejudice; failure to discover did not affect outcome.
Ineffective assistance—sequestration hearing	Counsel failed to seek a hearing on Stephens’ alleged sequestration violation.	No demonstrated prejudice from lack of hearing.	No ineffective assistance; prejudice not shown.
Ineffective assistance—hearsay objection to Stephens' testimony	Counsel should have objected to hearsay about Fryer’s statements to bolster trial strategy.	Even if error, record shows ample motive evidence; no reasonable probability of different outcome.	No ineffective assistance for hearsay objection; outcome not affected.
Ineffective assistance—motions in limine re gun evidence	Counsel failed to preclude gun evidence via motions in limine.	Claims not properly raised in habeas petition or decision; barred on review.	Claims regarding gun evidence were not reviewable on appeal.

State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700 (2000) (impeachment evidence may be Brady material; materiality required to undermine confidence in verdict)
State v. Wilcox, 254 Conn. 441 (2000) (impeachment evidence and materiality standard in Brady analysis)
State v. McPhail, 213 Conn. 161 (1989) (impeachment evidence within Brady; materiality test)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality; reasonable probability standard for suppressed evidence)
State v. Gant, 231 Conn. 43 (1994) (Brady materiality and due process considerations)
Morant v. Commissioner of Correction, 117 Conn.App. 279 (2009) (Brady impeachment evidence; broader appellate review)
State v. Dixon, 72 Conn.App. 852 (2002) (Brady framework requires suppression, favorable, and materiality elements)