167 Conn. App. 312
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- In 1996 Jamison was convicted by a jury of second‑degree assault by means of a deadly weapon (§ 53a‑60(a)(2)); acquitted on separate firearm counts. He was sentenced to five years.
- Trial evidence: victim Preston testified he was struck in the head with a gun and repeatedly in the face with a ~2‑foot stick wrapped with tape and coaxial cable; the stick admitted into evidence.
- Trial counsel Gladstone did not object to admission of the stick or challenge instructions about “deadly weapon.” Appellate counsel Hutchinson raised other issues on direct appeal but did not challenge sufficiency as to the stick. Direct appeal affirmed.
- Jamison filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to contest that the stick qualified as a “deadly weapon,” and alleged prosecutorial impropriety (procedurally defaulted).
- The habeas court found the stick could reasonably be viewed by a juror as a bludgeon/deadly weapon, declined to second‑guess the jury, found no prejudice from counsel’s acts, dismissed the prosecutorial claim as defaulted, and denied relief. Jamison appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Jamison's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of the stick or to challenge jury instruction on “deadly weapon” | Gladstone should have objected and argued the stick could not be a deadly weapon as a matter of law (not a bludgeon) | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; even if deficient, there was no prejudice because reasonable juror could find the stick (or gun) a deadly weapon based on the record | No ineffective assistance — no prejudice; habeas court properly denied claim |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising sufficiency of evidence as to the stick on direct appeal | Hutchinson’s failure to challenge the stick’s sufficiency was deficient (she never viewed the exhibit) | Any failure was not prejudicial because the evidence was sufficient and jury could rely on gun or stick; no reasonable probability of a different result on appeal | No ineffective assistance — deficient performance (viewing exhibits) found, but no prejudice, so claim fails |
| Whether the stick is, as a matter of law, outside the statutory definition of “deadly weapon” (bludgeon) | Jamison: “bludgeon” requires a heavy/weighted implement; the lightweight stick cannot qualify as matter of law | The term is ordinary‑meaning and context‑dependent; jury may conclude a stick/wrapped rod is a bludgeon | Court refused to adopt a categorical rule that bludgeon must be heavy; reasonable juror could find the stick a deadly weapon |
| Whether inconsistent verdicts (acquittal on firearm counts, conviction on deadly‑weapon assault) required relief | Jamison argues inconsistency shows jury could not have found a deadly weapon | Inconsistent verdicts are not reviewable; sufficiency independent review controls | Verdict inconsistency not a basis for relief; sufficient evidence supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (2009) (inconsistent verdicts between acquittal and conviction are not reviewable)
- State v. Mercer, 29 Conn. App. 679 (1992) (a firearm may be used as a bludgeon)
- State v. Ovechka, 292 Conn. 533 (2009) (unloaded gun or starter pistol can be usable as a bludgeon)
- State v. Woods, 234 Conn. 301 (1995) (statutory terms are given their ordinary meaning; courts may consult dictionaries but context controls)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (2008) (prejudice inquiry for ineffective appellate counsel requires assessing likelihood of success on direct appeal)