State v. Bell, 33 A.3d 167

Bell was convicted of first-degree assault, carrying a pistol without a permit, and criminal possession of a pistol for the June 13, 2002 shooting of a New Haven police officer.
A jury found Bell to be a persistent dangerous felony offender based on a prior robbery conviction, triggering § 53a-40 (h) on remand for enhanced sentencing.
The trial court initially imposed a 40-year sentence under § 53a-40 (h), doubling the usual maximum for the assault offense, after finding extended incarceration would best serve the public interest.
On appeal, this court held § 53a-40 (h) unconstitutional to the extent it required the court to decide the public-interest finding, and remanded for a jury to determine the public-interest question beyond a reasonable doubt.
On remand, the jury again found that extended incarceration would best serve the public interest, and Bell was resentenced to 40 years; the defendant challenged the retroactive application, the meaning of public interest, expert testimony about federal sentence length, and admission of injury details.
The trial court’s rulings were appealed, and the supreme court affirmed, holding the retroactive application did not violate ex post facto due to procedural nature of the change, the costs of incarceration could not be considered under the statute, expert testimony about federal sentence length was properly excluded as speculative and irrelevant, and the injury-details evidence, though may have been prejudicial, was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ex post facto retroactivity of Bell gloss	Bell contends retroactive application disadvantages Bell.	Bell argues the modified § 53a-40 (h) should have been applied only prospectively.	Retroactive application does not violate ex post facto due to procedural nature.
Meaning of 'public interest' in § 53a-40 (h)	Public interest includes costs of incarceration.	Public interest excludes incarceration costs; focuses on protection from dangerous offenders.	Public interest excludes incarceration costs; cost considerations are not part of § 53a-40 (h).
Admissibility of expert testimony on federal sentence length	Evidence of federal sentence length could inform public-interest determination.	Testimony is speculative and irrelevant to state public-interest factors.	Excluded as speculative and irrelevant; trial court properly limited testimony.
Admission of details of the victim's injuries	Details are highly probative of the nature and circumstances.	Details are prejudicial and only marginally relevant.	Admission deemed harmless error; no reversal.

State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748 (2007) (concluded § 53a-40 (h) unconstitutional to the extent it required the court to find public interest; remanded for jury finding)
Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 283 (1977) (procedural changes are not ex post facto; focus on notice and punishment)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (guidance on remedy when part of statute is invalidated; separability and legislative intent)
California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (1995) (ex post facto focus on whether change alters penalty or criminal conduct)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (admission of prior conviction can be unduly prejudicial when stipulation available)