State v. Bush, 157 A.3d 586

Background

Between June and November 2010 undercover buys occurred near Bush’s Pembroke Street porch; six sales were attributed to Bush and seven were alleged in the information. The jury convicted Bush of six drug sales (as a drug-dependent seller), conspiracy, and racketeering under CORA, but acquitted on one sale date.
For the racketeering count the jury returned a special verdict identifying only two predicate incidents (June 30 and November 9, 2010) as the basis for a pattern of racketeering activity under General Statutes § 53-396(b).
The Appellate Court reversed the racketeering conviction, holding the two jury-found predicates were insufficient to prove an association-in-fact enterprise and remanded with directions to enter an acquittal on that count.
The trial judge denied Bush’s mid‑voir dire request for a continuance after Bush elected pro se representation; Bush then accepted appointed counsel as standby counsel and later resumed counsel. The Appellate Court held the denial of the continuance effectively deprived Bush of the right to self-representation and ordered a new trial on the remaining counts.
The state sought certification on whether (1) the sufficiency review of enterprise evidence is limited to the predicate acts named in the special verdict, and (2) whether denial of a continuance after a midtrial Faretta election violated the right to self-representation. The Supreme Court granted certification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bush)	Held
Scope of sufficiency review for CORA enterprise	Review may consider the entire trial record (not just the predicate acts on the special verdict); evidence of other sales remained available to prove an enterprise.	The special verdict’s identification of only two incidents limits the sufficiency inquiry to those incidents; jury’s failure to mark other dates operated like acquittals on enterprise-related acts.	Court: Reviewing courts and juries may consider the entire record when assessing the enterprise element; Appellate Court erred to limit review to only the named predicates. HOWEVER, on the full record the evidence was still insufficient to prove an association-in-fact enterprise.
Sufficiency of evidence of an association-in-fact enterprise	The pattern of sales, shared location (porch), and communications supported finding an ongoing enterprise.	The evidence showed merely an aggregation of friendly dealers; lacked structure, common supply, profit/weapon sharing, role differentiation, or coordination sufficient to be an enterprise.	Court: Evidence was insufficient to prove the structure/continuing unit required for an association-in-fact enterprise; racketeering conviction must be reversed.
Right to self-representation and continuance after trial began	Denial of continuance was proper: right to self-representation is sharply curtailed after voir dire begins; trial management and schedule justify refusing an indefinite continuance; standby counsel had culled critical materials.	Denial of reasonable time to review voluminous disclosure and locate witnesses effectively forced waiver of meaningful self-representation and thus was structural error requiring a new trial.	Court: Trial court did not abuse its discretion; midtrial Faretta requests are curtailed and continuity/administration concerns permit denial of an indefinite continuance when standby counsel is available and court made accommodations. Appellate Court erred to order new trial on this ground.
Remedy and remand	State sought affirmation of remaining convictions.	Bush sought reversal/vacatur based on continuance/self-representation error.	Court: Affirmed Appellate Court as to racketeering reversal; reversed Appellate Court as to continuance/self-representation issue and remanded for consideration of remaining claims.

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (criminal defendant has right to self-representation but must knowingly and intelligently waive counsel)
Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (association‑in‑fact enterprise requires proof of a structure: purpose, relationships, and sufficient longevity)
United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (enterprise and pattern are distinct elements under racketeering law)
State v. Rodriguez‑Roman, 297 Conn. 66 (2010) (Connecticut interpretation of CORA enterprise and structure requirement)
State v. Flanagan, 293 Conn. 406 (2009) (balancing test for midtrial Faretta requests and factors trial court must consider)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (trial courts have broad discretion over continuances and scheduling)
United States v. Connolly, 341 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2003) (court may consider evidence beyond the proved predicates when assessing enterprise under RICO)
United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004) (special verdicts identifying predicates do not remove related evidence from jury consideration for enterprise or conspiracy issues)