143 Conn. App. 655
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Petitioner Anthony Small appeals the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the trial court's denial of his petition for a new trial.
- Petitioner claimed abuse of discretion in denying certification to appeal and improper denial of a new trial based on newly discovered and/or suppressed evidence and an allegedly unconstitutional jury charge.
- Trial court denied the petition for a new trial in 2006; Small sought certification to appeal, which the appellate court dismissed.
- The underlying criminal case stemmed from 1990 events involving drug theft, pursuit, and multiple murders in Bridgeport and West Haven, with Small fleeing to New York before his 1994 arrest.
- FBI and parole documents were admitted at the hearing on the petition for a new trial and were analyzed under the standards for newly discovered and suppressed evidence, respectively.
- The court held the FBI and parole documents not material to a different outcome, and it held the jury-charge issue not debatable; the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion denying the new-trial petition based on newly discovered/suppressed evidence. | Small argues materiality; evidence could have altered the outcome. | State contends evidence not material under applicable standards. | No abuse; evidence not material; not capable of producing a different result. |
| Whether the court improperly denied the new-trial petition over an allegedly unconstitutional jury charge. | Small asserts the jury charge on consciousness of guilt was defective. | State contends challenge to jury charge not properly raised in a petition for a new trial. | No abuse; jury-charge issue not properly reviewable in a petition for a new trial; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Demers v. State, 209 Conn. 143 (1988) (standard for suppression/evidence in a petition for a new trial; abuse of discretion standard applied)
- Shabazz v. State, 259 Conn. 811 (2002) (newly discovered evidence must persuade that a different verdict could result)
- State v. Wilcox, 254 Conn. 441 (2000) (materiality for suppressed evidence requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Asherman v. State, 202 Conn. 429 (1987) (newly discovered evidence standard for new trial)
- Ortiz v. State, 252 Conn. 533 (2000) (considerations in materiality of undisclosed evidence)
- Latour v. State, 276 Conn. 399 (2006) (structural vs. non-structural error considerations)