Jones v. State, 328 Conn. 84

Background

In 1990 Melvin Jones was arrested for the murder of Wayne Curtis; after a 1992 conviction this court reversed and he was retried and convicted in 1996. The conviction rested largely on multiple eyewitnesses placing Jones (or a man with similar appearance) near the victim and a jacket discarded in a dumpster that contained a receipt linked to the victim's car.
In 2010 the state agreed to DNA testing of the dumpster jacket and hairs from the victim's car. Testing of the jacket's interior (wearer areas) identified a mixed DNA profile excluding both Jones and the victim; hairs from the car also excluded Jones.
Jones petitioned for a new trial under the Asherman newly discovered evidence test. The trial court found the DNA testing reliable and credited the experts but denied the petition as the new results would not probably produce a different verdict. The Appellate Court affirmed on abuse of discretion review.
Jones sought review arguing the Appellate Court should apply de novo review because (1) the judge deciding the new-trial petition did not preside at the original trial and (2) the parties did not dispute the credibility of the new DNA evidence—only its legal effect.
The Supreme Court held that when (a) the judge deciding the new-trial petition did not preside over the original trial and (b) the credibility of the new evidence is undisputed and the only question is whether it would probably produce a different result, appellate review of the legal import of the facts (the fourth Asherman element) is de novo. Applying de novo review, the Court affirmed the denial of a new trial because the DNA results did not make it more likely than not that a jury would reach a different verdict.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of appellate review for denial of new-trial petition when new evidence credibility undisputed and judge who ruled did not hear original trial	Jones: de novo review appropriate because credibility is not in dispute and only legal application remains.	State: continue abuse of discretion review for new-trial denials under long-standing precedent and statute.	De novo review of the legal question (fourth Asherman element) applies in these specific circumstances; abuse of discretion remains where the trial judge presided at the original trial or credibility is contested.
Application of fourth Asherman element (probability of different result) to 2010 DNA results	Jones: DNA exclusions of Jones and victim from jacket and exclusion from hairs remove forensic link and would probably produce a different verdict.	State: DNA exclusions do not prove Jones never wore or touched the jacket, results are susceptible to degradation/contamination, and do not undercut the eyewitness evidence.	DNA results did not establish it was more likely than not a new jury would acquit; petition for new trial properly denied.
Role of trial court credibility findings when judge did not preside at original trial	Jones: trial court credited experts; parties agreed to credibility so appellate court can determine legal effect.	State: trial court discretion and fact-finding apparatus should be deferred to; finality concerns.	Defer to trial court factual findings/credibility but review legal import de novo when judge did not preside originally and credibility undisputed.
Statutory command (§ 52-270/§ 54-95) limits appellate review to abuse of discretion?	State: statute authorizes Superior Court discretion; legislature intended limited appellate review.	Jones: statute vests Superior Court authority but does not limit appellate scope; appellate review not constrained by that language.	Statutory language does not curtail appellate plenary review of legal questions; no statutory bar to de novo review in proper circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

Asherman v. State, 202 Conn. 429 (Conn. 1987) (four-element test for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
Lombardo v. State, 172 Conn. 385 (Conn. 1977) (clarifies "probably" standard for fourth Asherman element)
Skakel v. State, 295 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2010) (application of abuse of discretion and deference where credibility and trial judge's vantage matter)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (prejudice standard as mixed question of law and fact; plenary review for legal application)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (materiality standard for withheld evidence; comparison to Asherman fourth element)
State v. Ortiz, 280 Conn. 686 (Conn. 2006) (Brady materiality reviewed as mixed question: defer to facts, review law de novo)
Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 225 (Conn. 2015) (discusses overlap between Asherman fourth element and Brady/Strickland analyses)
Gannon v. State, 75 Conn. 576 (Conn. 1903) (historical adoption of abuse of discretion review for new-trial rulings)
Shabazz v. State, 259 Conn. 811 (Conn. 2002) (trial court's credibility role in new-trial petitions)
State v. Hammond, 221 Conn. 264 (Conn. 1992) (DNA exculpatory value where biological material tied to time of crime)