Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction
138 Conn. App. 454
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Lapointe was convicted of capital felony and multiple related offenses in 1992, based on a jury verdict later affirmed on direct appeal.
- A first habeas petition (2000) failed to overturn the conviction on the argued grounds, and appellate counsel did not pursue certain issues deemed strategic or not properly before the court.
- In 2009-2011, during the second habeas proceeding, Lapointe amended to include an actual innocence claim based on newly discovered DNA evidence (gloves and pubic hair) and ineffective assistance theories.
- The Ludlow note, indicating a possible 30–40 minute bum time for the fire, was allegedly suppressed by the state and not pursued in the first habeas; trial strategy could have been different if disclosed.
- The second habeas court rejected the DNA-based actual innocence claim as not meeting clear-and-convincing standard and held no prejudice from Vogt’s alleged ineffectiveness, but ultimately found Brady material suppression warranting a new trial.
- This court reverses in part: it grants a new trial on count one (ineffective assistance regarding Brady violation) and remands for a new trial, while affirming the actual innocence ruling on count three.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Ludlow note suppression a Brady violation with prejudice? | Vogt's failure to pursue Brady material was prejudicial. | The bum time was not material; experts could not determine precise timing. | Yes; suppression was material and prejudicial; new trial required. |
| Does the DNA evidence establish actual innocence? | DNA excludes Lapointe and supports innocence. | DNA evidence is unreliable or inconclusive; does not prove innocence. | No; no clear and convincing proof of actual innocence; no reversal on this ground. |
| Did prior habeas counsel's failure to pursue the Ludlow note constitute ineffective assistance? | Vogt’s inaction prejudiced the petitioner and violated Strickland. | Strategic or non-prejudicial reasons supported not pursuing it; different experts could resolve timing. | Yes; Vogt's performance was deficient and prejudicial; new trial warranted on count one. |
| Did prior habeas counsel's handling of other evidence (gloves/hairs) amount to ineffective assistance? | Counsel should have emphasized inconsistencies and ownership of gloves/hairs to undermine inculpatory statements. | Discrepancies were already apparent; not aurait to change the trial outcome. | Remains unresolved for this petition; court did not grant relief on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Gould v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 544 (Conn. 2011) (actual innocence defined; clear and convincing standard)
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745 (Conn. 1997) (actual innocence standard in habeas context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Ortiz, 280 Conn. 686 (Conn. 2006) (Brady material showing materiality; fair trial standard)
- Gibson v. Commissioner of Correction, 135 Conn. App. 139 (Conn. App. 2012) (relevance of reasonable probability of different outcome with new evidence)
- Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 113 Conn. App. 390 (Conn. App. 2009) (analysis of Brady and ineffective assistance in prior habeas context)
- State v. Esposito, 235 Conn. 802 (Conn. 1996) (Brady materiality framework)