128 Conn. App. 371
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- On Sept. 29–30, 2007, Garnett was at Sports Haven nightclub with friends and DiBenedetto; DiBenedetto was dating Arthur.
- The group traveled to 30 Glade Street in West Haven; a gray Ford Taurus and a red Pontiac Grand Am were involved; DiBenedetto spoke with Arthur during the drive.
- A shooter approached in a gray Ford Taurus, fired at Garnett at close range, and fled with the Pontiac; Garnett sustained life‑threatening injuries.
- Police recovered a silver Ford Taurus at 719 Orchard Street, where DiBenedetto lived with Arthur; a photo of Arthur and his two phones were found in the Taurus.
- Telephone records showed a forty‑one minute call between DiBenedetto’s two phones around 3:10–3:51 a.m. and additional calls up to 3:57 a.m.; 911 call reporting the shooting was at 3:57 a.m.
- Garnett later identified Arthur from a photo array and in court; a note found during a prison visit suggested coordinating witnesses not to cooperate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pretrial identification was unnecessarily suggestive | Garnett’s ID from array was reliable; no coercion | Identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive | Not unnecessarily suggestive; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Whether the Whelan tape was admissible as substantive evidence | Ollison’s inconsistent statements satisfy Whelan | Admission is improper; inconsistency not proven | Admissible; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt | Photographic ID, cell records, eyewitnesses, and notes connect Arthur to the shooting | Insufficient direct evidence tying him to the crime | Sufficient evidence; jury could reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (2005) (two‑part identification due process analysis for unnecessarily suggestive procedures)
- State v. Miller, 202 Conn. 463 (1987) (reliability of identification under totality of circumstances; not all identifications require suppression)
- State v. Simpson, 286 Conn. 634 (2008) (inconsistencies may arise from evasive answers; trial court has discretion on Whelan issues)
- State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280 (2000) (presumptive admissibility of prior inconsistent statements meeting Whelan criteria)
- State v. Reid, 123 Conn. App. 383 (2010) (standard for sufficiency review and cumulative evidence analysis)