186 Conn. App. 563
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Brett B. was convicted after a second jury trial of three counts of murder and one count of violating a standing criminal protective order for the Thanksgiving 2010 killings of his mother (B) and two housemates (R and J) in the East Hartford home.
- Protective order barred defendant from contacting B or entering her residence; neighbors repeatedly saw him near the house after the order.
- Crime scene: victims struck repeatedly; no forced entry; blood everywhere; a tissue with blood and a separate mucous/amylase-positive area (touch DNA matching defendant) found near defendant’s former bedroom; a plastic bag, checkbook, and phone charger had mixed DNA profiles that included the defendant as a possible contributor; bloody socked foot impressions in the kitchen.
- State forensic testimony: DNA analyst testified defendant could not be eliminated from some mixed profiles (Y-STR results could also match paternal relatives); imprint examiner testified impressions were consistent with defendant’s feet and both showed a right big-toe "swipe"; a forensic examiner (Vailonis) testified (on redirect) that the bloodstain on the tissue appeared to be a finger/transfer, not spatter.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) prosecutorial improprieties in closing about DNA and footprint evidence, and (2) improper admission of previously undisclosed expert opinion from Vailonis about the tissue stain; the trial court denied a motion to strike and the convictions were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor misstated DNA evidence | Prosecutor urged reasonable inferences from mixed/partial profiles and other circumstantial evidence to identify defendant as likely contributor | Prosecutor overstated/said defendant’s DNA was found when expert only said defendant was a possible contributor (and paternal relatives could match) | No impropriety: argument stayed within evidence and invited reasonable inferences; jury heard expert/statistics and defense had opportunity to object but did not |
| Prosecutor misstated foot‑impression significance | Prosecutor argued impressions (size, shape, toe swipe) supported identification and were for jury to weigh | Prosecutor implied knowledge beyond record by stressing rarity/significance of the toe‑swipe without population frequency | No impropriety: argument confined to admitted evidence; examiner testified to swipe; prosecutor did not claim extra-record knowledge |
| Admission of Vailonis’ opinion that tissue stain was a finger transfer (expert testimony not disclosed) | State: opinion was follow-up to cross questioning, witness had relevant experience/training, opinion observational not novel scientific method; defense could have requested continuance or voir dire | Defendant: opinion was surprise, undisclosed, and should have required pretrial disclosure/Porter (Daubert‑type) reliability hearing; motion to strike should have been granted | No abuse of discretion: defense failed to seasonably object; court limited opinion’s weight by telling jury they could judge by sight; Porter hearing not required because opinion was experiential/observational and not based on novel methodology |
| Motion to strike Vailonis’ testimony and claim of unfair ambush | State: defense opened the door; remedies like continuance available; prior reports did not include such opinion but direct/cross elicited issues | Defendant: lack of prior report deprived ability to prepare rebuttal expert and investigate methodology; prejudicial ambush | Denied: defendant did not seek continuance or Porter hearing; court framed testimony as subjective and left credibility/assessment to jury; no manifest injustice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (discusses preservation and appellate review of prosecutorial impropriety)
- State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (prosecutor may not suggest facts not in evidence or convey extra-record knowledge)
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (adopting Daubert‑style reliability inquiry for novel scientific evidence)
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (trial court gatekeeping and admissibility of expert/scientific testimony)
- State v. McDonough, 205 Conn. 352 (cumulative/inferential use of subordinate facts in proving elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (standard for assessing whether prosecutorial remarks deprived defendant of fair trial)