155 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- On Sept. 24, 2010 Bridgeport police stopped two males on the Stratford Avenue Bridge (defendant Bullock in a red shirt and Daquan Long in black) while investigating a nearby shooting; a brief exchange of gunfire ensued and both men were later subdued and taken into custody.
- Four eyewitnesses (Sergeant Granello, Officers Ferri and Blackwell, and motorist Vitka) testified that the red‑shirted man fired at officers; identification relied heavily on clothing and on-scene observations made moments after the shooting.
- Forensic evidence: two handguns were recovered from the Pequonnock River after the incident; gunshot residue testing showed residue on Long’s clothing but not on Bullock’s red shirt.
- Bullock testified he was unarmed and was misidentified; defense argued eyewitnesses were affected by stress, distance, weapon focus, etc., but did not present expert testimony on eyewitness reliability.
- Trial court convicted Bullock of attempt to commit assault in the first degree, carrying a pistol without a permit, and first‑degree reckless endangerment; Bullock appealed raising four main claims regarding jury instructions, admission of prior‑incident evidence, a cross‑examination question about an alleged pre‑shooting statement, and intent instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bullock) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Eyewitness‑identification jury instruction | No specialized Guilbert‑style instruction required because identifications were on‑scene, immediate, and not the product of post‑event police arrays or procedures. | Guilbert requires focused jury instruction and/or expert evidence on fallibility of eyewitness ID; jurors needed guidance on factors (stress, weapon focus, distance, certainty vs accuracy). | Court affirmed: no constitutional right to the requested instruction; on these facts IDs were immediate/on‑scene and instructions on credibility and identity were adequate. |
| 2. Admission of evidence about an earlier shooting / mistrial motion | Evidence of prior shooting was admissible to rebut defense theory (Long was sole shooter based on GSR) and to show origin/timing of recovered guns; limiting instructions cured prejudice. | Any reference to the prior incident was prejudicial and suggested Bullock’s bad character, warranting exclusion and mistrial. | Court affirmed: evidence relevant and probative for permissible purposes (GSR explanation, timing of weapons); limiting instructions and lack of unfair prejudice meant no abuse of discretion and mistrial denial proper. |
| 3. Cross‑examination question about alleged pre‑shooting statement (“if police roll up, bounce ’cause I’m shooting”) | Prosecutor had good‑faith basis to ask (information from officer’s source) and the question was highly probative of intent and consciousness consistent with shooting at officers; defendant denied the statement. | Question was beyond scope, unduly prejudicial, and risked implying defendant made inculpatory statement despite denial; denial did not erase prejudice. | Court affirmed: question was relevant and probative of intent; limited, supported in good faith, defendant denied it, and instructions (questions not evidence; do not infer opposite of denied testimony) mitigated prejudice. |
| 4. Intent instruction regarding inference from use of a firearm | State may permissibly instruct jurors that a weapon and manner of its use can be considered as circumstantial evidence of intent, so long as inference is permissive and burden remains on State. | Requested explicit language that mere use of a gun does not, by itself, prove specific intent to cause death or serious injury; feared mandatory presumption that would relieve the State of burden. | Court affirmed: charge as a whole used permissive language ("may"; "not a necessary inference"), repeatedly stated State’s burden beyond reasonable doubt, and thus did not create unconstitutional burden‑shifting. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (2012) (permitting expert testimony on eyewitness identification fallibility and advising focused jury instructions where appropriate)
- State v. Clark, 264 Conn. 723 (2003) (discussing instructional error standards)
- State v. Cerilli, 222 Conn. 556 (1992) (instructional omissions are nonconstitutional error unless jury likely misled)
- State v. Tillman, 220 Conn. 487 (1991) (harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional instructional errors)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (trial court need not use exact language of requested charge if substance covered)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) (prohibiting jury instructions that create conclusive or burden‑shifting presumptions regarding intent)
- State v. LaSalle, 95 Conn. App. 263 (2006) (upholding permissive inference from use of deadly weapon where instruction emphasized permissive language and State’s burden)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (providing four‑part test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)