State v. Caballero, 160 A.3d 1103

Background

In April 2011 the defendant entered the West Cornwall post office, removed a block of blank United States Postal Money Orders, and later provided them to accomplices who filled them out and cashed them at multiple Connecticut post offices.
The state traced serial numbers via Federal Reserve check images, identified one cashing participant (Guzman), and both Guzman and the postal clerk identified the defendant from photos.
The state charged the defendant by short form information, later filed an amended long form information charging conspiracy to commit third‑degree larceny (§§ 53a‑48 & 53a‑124), third‑degree larceny as an accessory (§§ 53a‑8 & 53a‑124), and nine counts of first‑degree forgery (§ 53a‑138(a)(1)).
The long form information did not specify which subdivision of § 53a‑124(a) the state relied on for the larceny counts; at a March 19, 2014 pretrial hearing the prosecutor stated the state was proceeding under § 53a‑124(a)(3) (public instrument).
The defendant had earlier moved for a bill of particulars and for essential facts, the court deferred pending the long form and later denied the motion after the state filed the long form; the defendant did not renew the motion after the March 19 hearing and did not object to draft jury instructions identifying § 53a‑124(a)(3).
The jury convicted the defendant on all counts; he appealed claiming inadequate notice from denial of the bill of particulars and resulting constitutional prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of motion for bill of particulars denied defendant notice and violated constitutional rights	State: oral statement at pretrial (March 19) and amended long form provided sufficient notice that it relied on § 53a‑124(a)(3); defendant had chance to renew motion or object to jury instructions but did not	Caballero: long form failed to specify subdivision of § 53a‑124(a); absence of particulars prejudiced preparation and violated Sixth Amendment and Conn. Const. art. I, § 8	Court: No abuse of discretion. Prosecutor’s on‑the‑record statement and long form apprised defendant; failure to renew motion or object waived complaint; no showing of prejudice
Whether defendant suffered prejudice from alleged ambiguity sufficient to require bill of particulars	State: defense raised issues that did not require specification of the § 53a‑124 subdivision; defendant’s trial defense (denying involvement / contesting public instrument status) did not need more particularity	Caballero: needed subdivision identification to prepare defense strategy and challenge the legal theory (public instrument)	Court: Defendant failed to show information was necessary to prepare defense; absence of subdivision did not prejudice defense
Whether extrinsic sources can cure an allegedly deficient information	State: prior case law allows use of record statements and filings (e.g., prosecutor’s in‑court statement, long form) to cure a short information’s ambiguity	Caballero: not disputed that extrinsic statements exist but argued they were insufficient	Held: Court relied on precedents permitting extrinsic statements to provide sufficient notice
Procedural waiver by not renewing motion or objecting to jury instructions	State: defendant had opportunity to renew and to object; failure to do so foreclosed later challenge	Caballero: argued initial motion should have been granted; did not reassert later	Held: Court emphasized defendant’s failure to utilize procedural safeguards and treated claim as unprejudiced and waived

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vumback, 263 Conn. 215 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (bill of particulars standard; defendant must show prejudice and necessity of particulars)
State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (use of extrinsic record materials to determine whether defendant was fairly informed)
State v. Kyles, 221 Conn. 643 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (procedural context for notice and particulars)
State v. Beaulieu, 164 Conn. 620 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (prosecutor’s on‑the‑record factual statement can cure need for bill of particulars)