State v. Bennett, 324 Conn. 744

Background

On July 10, 2009, Willie Brown was fatally stabbed outside Raffy’s Café in Meriden. Eyewitnesses identified Erick Bennett (defendant) as the stabber; thumb studs with Brown’s DNA were found in Bennett’s vehicle.
Jennifer Matias observed the scene from across the street, called 911, and later gave a recorded police statement saying a man in a red shirt (matching Bennett) fled but that a man in a yellow shirt (Benjamin) knelt by the victim and exclaimed, “I killed him.” The 911 call was not preserved.
Matias left Connecticut and was in Puerto Rico; defense counsel could not locate a reliable address and sought a court order directing the state to issue a material-witness certificate/warrant to secure her attendance and sought admission of her recorded police interview.
The trial court denied (1) defense request to compel out-of-state attendance (citing lack of authority/address under the statute invoked), and (2) admission of Matias’s recorded statement under the residual hearsay exception (found insufficiently reliable and uncorroborated). The jury convicted Bennett of murder.
Posttrial, Bennett sought leave to file a late motion for a new trial based on a post-verdict audit reporting defects in the state forensic lab; the trial court denied an evidentiary hearing and treated the audit as newly discovered evidence requiring other procedures.
Bennett appealed, raising claims including denial of compulsory process/right to present a defense, exclusion of two proffered prior statements (Matias and Arroyo’s investigator statement), discovery/in-camera review of police personnel files, cross-examination limits, denial of hearing on new-trial motion, and prosecutorial improprieties.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Bennett's Argument	Held
1) Whether court should have compelled out-of-state witness (Matias) attendance under the certificate statute (compulsory process)	Statute procedures are limited and defense invoked wrong statute; court lacked authority to order state to issue a §54‑82j warrant without address	Denied constitutional compulsory-process/right-to-present-defense where court refused to issue a certificate to summon Matias; Matias was material and unavailable	Denial affirmed: defendant failed to show he could designate Matias’s location with reasonable specificity to trigger issuance; no abuse of discretion
2) Whether Matias’s recorded police interview was admissible under the residual hearsay exception	Statement unsatisfactory: multiple hearsay layers, uncorroborated, declarant unavailable for cross-examination; not reliable	Statement was necessary and trustworthy (neutral disinterested eyewitness); exclusion violated right to present a defense	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — statement lacked indicia of reliability and corroboration required under residual exception
3) Whether portion of Arroyo’s later statement to defense investigator was admissible under Whelan as a prior inconsistent statement	Statement not sufficiently inconsistent with Arroyo’s trial testimony; trial court properly compared investigator statement to trial testimony	Investigator statement contradicted Arroyo’s testimony and should be admitted to impeach and substantively use under Whelan	Affirmed: proffered excerpt was not materially inconsistent with Arroyo’s trial testimony; trial court did not abuse discretion
4) Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal closing improperly impugned defense counsel and denied fair trial	Prosecutor’s rhetorical critique of defense tactics was fair argument tied to evidence and counsel’s choices (e.g., not questioning detectives)	Closing remarks likened defense strategy to ‘‘shotgun’’ tactics and were improper disparagement of counsel (requiring reversal)	Affirmed: comments were permissible rhetorical argument aimed at defense theory and witness choices, distinguished from impermissible attacks on counsel’s integrity

Key Cases Cited

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1967) (Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process applies to the states)
Minder v. Georgia, 183 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1902) (state subpoena power does not compel out-of-state witnesses)
Lancaster v. Green, 175 Ohio St. 203 (Ohio 1963) (defendant must designate out-of-state witness and location with exactitude before court must initiate uniform-act procedures)
State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (Conn. 1986) (permits substantive use of prior signed inconsistent statements when declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination)
State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763 (Conn. 2014) (prosecutor may not disparage defense counsel by implying deliberate deception; distinguishes permissible argument attacking defense theory)
State v. McClendon, 248 Conn. 572 (Conn. 1999) (residual hearsay exception applied narrowly; lack of cross-examination undermines reliability)