191 Conn.App. 808
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In Feb 2014 the victim, Kyle Brown-Edwards, was shot and later died; a nine-millimeter shell casing was recovered at the scene. Defendant Jaquwan Burton was charged with murder and related firearms offenses.
- Police executed an arrest at 461 Valley Street (defendant’s girlfriend Jackson lived there with her mother Nixon) on April 3, 2014 based on an unrelated warrant; officers located and arrested Burton in a locked bedroom.
- After Burton told Nixon a gun was in the bedroom and asked her to let police retrieve it, Nixon and Jackson each signed written consent-to-search forms. Officers searched and seized a two-tone 9mm handgun from a dresser; ballistics tied the gun to the shell casing.
- Before trial Burton moved to suppress the gun (arguing consent was coerced). The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, credited officers’ testimony, and denied suppression.
- At trial the court excluded (1) testimony by the lead investigator about two out‑of‑state witnesses’ alleged nonidentification of Burton from a photo array, and (2) a recorded interview of one eyewitness (Morgan Brown) as inadmissible hearsay under the Code of Evidence (pretrial identification rule and residual exception). Burton was convicted; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Burton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to search bedroom was voluntary (motion to suppress) | Nixon and Jackson freely and voluntarily consented; written forms executed; officers’ testimony credible | Consent was coerced by armed officers, early‑morning pressure, and threats/warnings that police would obtain a warrant or arrest Jackson | Denied suppression. Trial court’s finding of voluntary third‑party consent not clearly erroneous; credited officers and emphasized totality of circumstances and written disclaimers |
| Admissibility of investigator’s testimony that two witnesses failed to identify Burton in a photo array | Testimony is hearsay and inadmissible unless declarants are available; pretrial identification exception requires availability for cross‑examination | Nonidentification is non‑hearsay (or covered by pretrial identification exception) and probative of innocence | Affirmed exclusion. Testimony constituted hearsay (includes nonverbal assertions); §8‑5(2) identification exception inapplicable because witnesses unavailable; no other hearsay exception shown |
| Admissibility of the photographic array documents under business‑records exception | Documents are business records but cannot be used to imply witnesses’ nonidentification when declarants unavailable | Documents permit inference (no marks) the witnesses did not identify Burton; thus admissible under business‑records exception | Excluded. Business‑records exception covers the document contents, not implied nonverbal assertions; inference would be implied hearsay requiring a separate exception |
| Admissibility of videotaped police interview of Morgan Brown under residual exception (§8‑9) | Residual exception inapplicable because the interview lacks sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and the state cannot cross‑examine to probe ambiguities; corroboration lacking | Interview is necessary and sufficiently reliable (occurred soon after event, recorded) and thus admissible to impeach/contradict state evidence | Affirmed exclusion. Court acted within discretion: cross‑examination necessity and material inconsistencies undermined trustworthiness; residual exception applies only in rare cases |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (Conn. 2006) (warrantless home searches presumptively unreasonable; refusal to consent is a factor but does not automatically vitiate later consent)
- State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 (Conn. 2010) (valid consent analyzed under totality of circumstances; presence of armed officers is one factor)
- State v. King, 249 Conn. 645 (Conn. 1999) (nonverbal conduct offered as an assertion is hearsay)
- State v. Bennett, 324 Conn. 744 (Conn. 2016) (residual hearsay exception requires reasonable necessity and equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness; unavailability for cross‑examination undermines trustworthiness)
- State v. Outlaw, 216 Conn. 492 (Conn. 1990) (extrajudicial identification evidence is hearsay unless an exception applies)
- State v. George J., 280 Conn. 551 (Conn. 2006) (scope and limits of business‑records hearsay exception)
- State v. Burney, 288 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2008) (nonverbal conduct as hearsay and related analyses)
- State v. Carrion, 313 Conn. 823 (Conn. 2014) (definition and treatment of hearsay)