State v. Carattini
142 Conn. App. 516
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Jacob Carattini was convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit murder under §§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a (a).
- Victim Jose Suarez (Green Eyes) was found dead from blunt force trauma and gunshot; defendant and victim were acquaintances with drug ties.
- Lopez, a purportedly jailhouse-related witness, testified about defendant’s statements and events surrounding the murder.
- The defense claimed Lopez was a jailhouse informant and that the jury should receive a cautionary instruction, which the court declined to give.
- Feliciano testified to statements by Cruz about disposing of the gun and car, admitted under hearsay exceptions (coconspirator and penal interest).
- The trial court admitted Feliciano’s testimony under the coconspirator exception and, alternatively, the penal-interest exception; defendant appealed alleging instructional error and improper hearsay, which the court rejected on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jailhouse informant instruction required? | State; Lopez not a jailhouse informant under Diaz. | Carattini entitles jury to special credibility instruction per Patterson/Arroyo. | No error; not a jailhouse informant; general credibility instruction sufficient. |
| Admissibility of Feliciano's statements under coconspirator hearsay | Feliciano's statements fit coconspirator exception § 8-3 (1)(D). | Challenge to coconspirator exception; risk of unfair prejudice. | Court affirmed admission; defendant abandoned penal-interest challenge; coconspirator exception upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (Conn. 2005) (special credibility instruction for jailhouse informants required when promises of leniency exist)
- State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2009) (inherently unreliable jailhouse informants require credibility instruction; not limited to incarcerated witnesses)
- State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 (Conn. 2011) (nonjailhouse informants may rely on general credibility instruction together with awareness of self-interest)
- State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 (Conn. 2009) (court may consider witness’s incentives; supports lack of jailhouse instruction when not incarcerated together)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (overruled by later decisions on related issues; referenced in context of credibility/policy considerations)
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (Conn. 2007) (hearsay evidence admissibility framework; preserves challenge requirements)