State v. Andrews, 96 A.3d 1199

Background

Michelle McMaster was found dead at 17 Burton Street, Waterbury on March 21, 1999, with asphyxia by manual strangulation and possible sexual assault.
Donna Russell provided multiple statements in 2008–2009 describing the defendant, a co-defendant, and others choking and sexually assaulting the victim to obtain crack cocaine.
The defendant, Lawrence R. Andrews, was arrested March 6, 2009 and charged with murder and felony murder based on the predicate felony of attempted robbery.
At trial, the jury acquitted Andrews of murder but found him guilty of felony murder and he was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment.
The defense sought to call a witness (Andrews’ sister) to show Andrews had funds from his mother’s estate, arguing lack of motive to commit robbery; the court barred the witness as irrelevant, making Andrews the sole defense witness.
Andrews challenges several trial rulings and prosecutorial conduct, along with the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of his statements to police.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Andrews’ witness preclusion a due process violation?	Andrews argues exclusion of Andrews’ inheritance testimony violated his Sixth Amendment defense rights.	Andrews contends the testimony was central to the defense theory and could not be considered cumulative.	No constitutional violation; preclusion was harmless and evidentiary.
Did prosecutorial improprieties deprive Andrews of a fair trial?	Prosecutor’s cross-examination and closing argument were allegedly inflammatory and improper.	Prosecutor engaged in improper questioning and arguments that misled the jury.	No due process deprivation; overall trial fair under Williams factors.
Did the State’s theories against Andrews and Smith conflict so as to violate due process?	Different predicate theories for felony murder create inherently contradictory theories.	Inconsistent theories violate due process.	Charges were complementary and did not violate due process.
Was the evidence sufficient to convict Andrews of felony murder?	The victim’s death occurred during and in furtherance of the attempted robbery; strangulation by Andrews and others was part of a continuous sequence.	Victim’s sexual assault could mean death was not in furtherance of the attempted robbery.	Evidence was sufficient; death occurred in course of and in furtherance of the attempted robbery.
Were Andrews’ March 6–7 statements to police admissible or involuntary?	Statements were voluntary; warnings given and waivers obtained; testimony credible.	Statements were involuntary due to withdrawal, addiction, and medication issues; coercive tactics alleged.	Statements were voluntary; suppression denied.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hedge, 297 Conn. 621 (2010) (defendant’s right to present a defense and evidentiary rulings examined)
State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (2004) (prosecutorial impropriety factors and due process assessment)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (two-step Williams framework for prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363 (2004) (evidentiary closings and absence of witnesses discussed)
State v. Sandoval, 263 Conn. 524 (2003) (case-by-case approach to restricting defense testimony)