187 Conn. App. 438
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Alanna R. Carey was convicted by a jury of murder for shooting her former boyfriend, Edward Landry, in a motel room on January 2, 2012.
- Facts supporting guilt: defendant fired three shots, police found her gun and three shell casings fired from that gun, she removed casings, left the scene with her sister, delayed calling 911 for ~3 hours, staged the scene, and gave misleading statements to the 911 operator.
- Pretrial and trial events: court admitted testimony by the victim’s friend (Manganello) recounting the victim saying the defendant threatened him; defendant moved in limine to exclude that hearsay evidence but was denied.
- Defendant asserted self-defense and extreme emotional disturbance as an affirmative defense; the court instructed the jury on extreme emotional disturbance despite the prosecutor’s objection to its factual basis.
- Defense claimed prosecutorial improprieties (comments during direct exam and closing) and objected to a falsus in uno jury instruction; trial court denied mistrial and gave the falsus in uno instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Manganello’s testimony (hearsay/residual exception) | Testimony admissible to show victim’s fear and rebut self-defense via state-of-mind / residual hearsay exceptions | Testimony was double hearsay and inadmissible; admission prejudiced defendant | Even if admission was erroneous, error was harmless given overwhelming consciousness-of-guilt evidence; no reversal |
| Prosecutorial impropriety during direct exam (prosecutor said defense counsel was "cheating") | Comment not shown to have been heard by jury; no record evidence of prejudice | Comment undermined defense counsel and prejudiced jury | No ascertainable evidence jury heard it; claim fails |
| Prosecutorial impropriety during closing (several claims: impugn counsel, tell jury to ignore instructions, argue facts not in evidence, express opinion on credibility) | Comments were fair responses, based on evidence or reasonable inferences, and within permissible argument | Comments improperly attacked counsel, told jury to disregard instruction, argued facts outside record, and expressed personal opinion about defendant’s credibility | Court found comments permissible: responsive to defense, argued reasonable inferences from evidence, did not tell jury to ignore charge, and did not impermissibly express personal opinion |
| Jury instruction: falsus in uno (instructing jury to consider whether a witness who lied in part should be believed at all) | Instruction is a permissive credibility instruction within the trial court’s discretion | Instruction is prejudicial and should be disallowed (relying on other jurisdictions discouraging use) | Instruction proper in Connecticut, correctly stated law, and did not mislead jury; use is discretionary and long established in Connecticut |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (discusses standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (prosecutorial remark to jury about counsel characterized in assessing prejudice)
- State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (limits on prosecutorial expression of personal opinion; permissible comments on evidence)
- Opotzner v. Bass, 63 Conn. App. 555 (falsus in uno instruction is permissive and within trial court discretion)
- Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231 (historic approval of falsus in uno maxim in Connecticut)