153 Conn.App. 507
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Dissenting opinion by Justice Sheldon criticizing the majority’s admission of prior misconduct to prove motive and intent in the Hargrave burglary/related offenses.
- Defendant Brown was charged as an accessory and conspirator in burglary and larceny based on a prior Litchfield car burglary spree with Johansen.
- The trial court admitted evidence of the Litchfield burglaries to show motive and intent for the Hargrave offenses.
- The majority upheld admission under motive and intent exceptions and a balancing test, while dissent argues no direct logical link and undue prejudice.
- Evidence was extensive, with trial focus and closing arguments emphasizing the defendant’s prior bad acts, risking improper propensity inferences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior misconduct for motive | State: prior misconduct shows motive to entice/conspire | Brown: not sufficiently linked to motive | Evidence improperly admitted; lacks logical connection for motive |
| Admissibility of prior misconduct for intent | State: past acts show intent to confer or conspire | Brown: no genuine dispute linking past acts to the charged intent | Evidence improperly admitted; not probative on intent beyond impermissible propensity |
| Prejudicial vs. probative balance | State: probative value outweighs prejudice | Brown: prejudice to jury outweighed any value | Court erred in balancing; prejudice outweighed probative value; reversible error |
| Harmless-error assessment | If improper evidence influenced verdict, not harmless; requires new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 147 Conn. 589 (Conn. 1960) (inadmissibility of other-crimes evidence to prove guilt; general rule exceptions listed)
- State v. Fredericks, 149 Conn. 121 (Conn. 1961) (general rule against using prior misconduct; exceptions for probative purpose)
- State v. Braman, 191 Conn. 670 (Conn. 1983) (balancing prejudicial-probative test; abuse review standard)
- State v. Ibraimov, 187 Conn. 348 (Conn. 1982) (admissibility of prior misconduct for non-propensity purposes; two-pronged test)
- State v. Meehan, 260 Conn. 372 (Conn. 2002) (distinction between proving act vs. proving intent; limits on use of prior acts)
- State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 (Conn. 1995) (prior misconduct used to prove motive/intent with direct relation)
- State v. Marshall, 166 Conn. 593 (Conn. 1974) (prior misconduct with direct relationship to charged offense; admissibility)