166 Conn. App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- At ~6 a.m. police pursued an SUV after hearing gunshots; occupants arrested and a .45 Ruger was recovered outside the pursuit route; .40 casings found near where shots were fired did not match the Ruger.
- Tanika McCotter (driver) gave inconsistent statements: at a Stevens hearing she was impeached with a prior police statement implicating the passengers as shooters; at the criminal trial she was unavailable and her Stevens transcript was admitted.
- The jury was allowed to consider portions of McCotter’s Stevens testimony — including references to her prior statement to police — as substantive evidence; petitioner (Eubanks) was convicted under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-38 for possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle.
- On habeas review Eubanks argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on hearsay grounds to the substantive use of McCotter’s impeachment statements within the Stevens transcript.
- The habeas court denied relief and certification to appeal; the Appellate Court reviewed whether that denial was an abuse of discretion and whether counsel’s performance and prejudice satisfied Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to object on hearsay grounds to substantive use of McCotter’s prior inconsistent statement contained in Stevens transcript | Eubanks: counsel intended to exclude Stevens transcript and should have (and did not) object on hearsay; failure shows ignorance of controlling evidence law and no tactical justification | State: counsel objected to admission generally and redactions were negotiated; presumption of reasonable strategy not rebutted | Held: Counsel’s failure to object to the double-hearsay impeachment material was deficient; counsel testified he tried to exclude the transcript and did not claim a strategic reason for omitting a hearsay objection |
| Whether the impeachment portions of the Stevens transcript were admissible substantively (including under the residual exception) | Eubanks: those portions were hearsay within hearsay and not independently admissible for substantive use; residual exception did not apply | State: argued admissibility or that residual exception (§ 8-9) could justify substantive use | Held: The impeachment references were inadmissible for substantive purposes; residual exception unlikely to apply and would conflict with Whelan/Williams principles |
| Whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal | Eubanks: issue is debatable among jurists and deserved encouragement; habeas court relied incorrectly on presumption of competence without factual support | State: denial was within discretion given habeas court’s factual findings | Held: Habeas court abused its discretion; Strickland issue was debatable and meritorious enough for certification |
| Whether Eubanks was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object (Strickland prejudice prong) | Eubanks: without the substantive impeachment testimony there was little evidence linking him to possession; reasonable probability of a different outcome | State: argued corroborating evidence (gun recovered, officer observations, shell casings) supported conviction | Held: Prejudice established — removing the substantive impeachment evidence undermines confidence in the verdict and requires a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (standards for appellate review after denial of certification to appeal in habeas cases)
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (factors informing review of habeas certification denials)
- State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (prior inconsistent written statements admissible substantively only when declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination)
- State v. Williams, 231 Conn. 235 (Whelan does not permit substantive use of prior inconsistent statements when declarant does not testify at trial)
- Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (attorney’s ignorance of fundamental legal points can constitute unreasonable performance)
- Ledbetter v. Commissioner of Correction, 275 Conn. 451 (standard for assessing counsel competency and ineffective assistance)