161 Conn.App. 210
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Victim, an exotic dancer, disappeared March 14, 2007 after leaving home to meet a client; petitioner Otto had been a frequent patron and had a personal relationship with her.
- Police identified Otto from voicemail and phone activity; he admitted giving the victim a ride that afternoon and later denied knowledge of her whereabouts.
- Police conducted a warrantless March 23, 2007 search of Otto’s 75-acre Stafford property (consent-based visit) and later, after cadaver dog alerts during an April 8 consent search, obtained warrants to search the truck (Apr. 12) and property (Apr. 16).
- Warranted search recovered charred human remains (DNA-matched to the victim), bone fragments, a portion of a foot, the victim’s keys, shell casings, blood-stained items, and Otto’s firearms (one missing a barrel).
- Trial: jury convicted Otto of murder and two counts of evidence tampering; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Habeas petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel (cross-exam of forensic anthropologist Harper) and appellate counsel (failure to challenge denial of motion to suppress). Habeas court denied relief; petitioner appealed and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting Harper’s opinion suggesting homicide during cross-examination | Gavin’s cross led Harper to opine that deliberate cremation suggested homicide; this was deficient and prejudicial | Gavin reasonably expected Harper to echo the medical examiner’s inability to determine manner of death; questioning was strategic and immediately challenged the opinion | Counsel not ineffective — habeas court credited trial counsel’s strategic intent and that he promptly undermined Harper’s opinion |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not appealing denial of motion to suppress evidence from March 23 warrantless entry | Patterson should have appealed suppression ruling because the March 23 observations/photos were improper warrantless intrusions | Patterson reasonably judged suppression appeal a weak/longshot claim under the emergency doctrine and focused on stronger issues; most incriminating evidence came from later warrant searches | Counsel not ineffective — decision to omit suppression claim was reasonable appellate strategy |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Otto, 305 Conn. 51 (summary of facts, trial, and direct appeal affirming conviction)
- Mukhtaar v. Commissioner of Correction, 158 Conn. App. 431 (standard of review in habeas ineffective-assistance claims)
- Watson v. Commissioner of Correction, 111 Conn. App. 160 (appellate counsel tactical decisions not second-guessed with hindsight)
- State v. Kendrick, 314 Conn. 212 (explanation of emergency doctrine justifying warrantless entry)