Gaston v. Commissioner of Correction
2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 572
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Jason Gaston was convicted of burglary in the third degree and received a five-year sentence consecutive to a sentence he was serving.
- On appeal, this court affirmed the conviction in a per curiam decision in 2007.
- The underlying events occurred on July 10, 2005 at a Pella Windows warehouse in Monroe, where Gaston allegedly met a customer and attempted to sell a door for cash only.
- Police later investigated a warehouse incident; three men, including Jessie DaCosta, were questioned near the warehouse; DaCosta testified at the habeas trial that Gaston did not meet him at Lowe's or at the warehouse and that he did not know Gaston.
- Gaston filed an amended writ of habeas corpus alleging actual innocence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the habeas court denied relief on the actual innocence claim.
- The court applied the two-part actual innocence standard: (1) clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence considering all evidence; (2) no reasonable fact finder would convict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DaCosta's testimony is newly discovered evidence establishing actual innocence | Gaston argues DaCosta’s testimony is newly discovered and would exonerate him. | State contends DaCosta’s testimony does not create new reasonable doubt about guilt. | DaCosta’s testimony does not establish actual innocence. |
| Whether DaCosta's testimony, even if newly discovered, would change the verdict on burglary | DaCosta’s account would show a different passer and undermine guilt. | Even with DaCosta’s testimony, the remaining evidence supports burglary conviction. | DaCosta’s testimony would not alter the burglary conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745 (1997) (two-part actual innocence standard governing habeas petitions)
- Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62 (2009) (refines analysis of actual innocence with cumulative evidence)
- Weinberg v. Commissioner of Correction, 112 Conn. App. 100 (2009) (newly discovered evidence requirement for habeas relief)
- Sargent v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn. App. 725 (2010) (burden to show newly discovered evidence by preponderance)