301 Conn. 376
Conn.2011Background
- Defendant Wallace Brabham was convicted at trial of burglary in the third degree and attempt to commit larceny in the first degree.
- After conviction, Brabham fled Connecticut twice, first before sentencing in 2000 and again before sentencing in 2004, then was rearrested and eventually sentenced in 2008 to a total of 15 years.
- Brabham appealed from the judgment, raising multiple challenges to trial conduct and evidentiary rulings.
- The State moved to dismiss the appeal under the common-law fugitive disentitlement doctrine because Brabham fled after conviction and before sentencing.
- The trial exhibits were lost or damaged during Brabham’s absences, and the record relied on exhibits that could not be fully reconstructed for appeal.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that Brabham’s appeal is barred under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is barred by fugitive disentitlement | Brabham fled and remained at large; state argues dismissal. | Not argued here; Brabham contends issues on appeal should proceed. | Yes; appeal dismissed under disentitlement doctrine. |
| Prejudice to appellate process from Brabham's flight | Flight caused loss of trial exhibits and impaired witness availability. | Brabham contends no prejudice to review of claims. | Prejudice shown; State’s burden established; dismissal upheld. |
| Impact of lost or damaged exhibits on sufficiency review | Evidence (value of computers) relied on exhibits now lost; review hampered. | Record can be supplemented with replacements; no prejudice argued. | Loss prevents proper constitutional sufficiency review; dismissal sustained. |
| Whether the court should address other trial-error claims despite dismissal | Appeal should be considered on the merits of claims. | Brabham seeks review of trial decisions. | Appeal dismissed in its entirety; merits not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valle v. Commissioner of Correction, 244 Conn. 634 (1998) (fugitive disentitlement and appellate dismissal considerations)
- State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561 (1996) (fugitive status and appellate review interaction)
- State v. Leslie, 166 Conn. 393 (1974) (flight disentitles defendant to appeal)
- State v. Goree, 11 Neb.App. 685 (2003) (delay from escape prejudicial to appellate process)
- Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (1993) (fugitive disentitlement considerations in federal context)