165 Conn. App. 791
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Keith Chemlen (known to clients as “Keith” or “Keith David”) worked as a sales associate at National Credit Masters and was charged with second‑degree forgery and third‑degree larceny after accepting client payments and promising credit‑repair or debt settlement services he did not perform.
- At hiring, defendant presented a state ID bearing the name “Keith David”; the DMV record showed the name “Keith D Chemlen.” Brenes, company owner, copied the ID and testified he believed the defendant’s last name was "David."
- Investigation showed the defendant accepted cash and PayPal payments to personal accounts, sent fake credit reports, and did not pay creditors or remit funds to National Credit Masters. Multiple clients testified they paid the defendant and did not receive promised services.
- Defendant offered several postal and LLC documents (post office box applications, USPS electronic record, DK Management articles) to show Brenes knew defendant’s last name before hiring him; the trial court excluded those exhibits for lack of authenticity and potential jury confusion.
- Jury convicted defendant of two counts of forgery in the second degree and one count of larceny in the third degree; one forgery verdict later vacated on double jeopardy grounds. Defendant appealed, claiming improper exclusion of impeachment evidence, a Brady/Golding prosecutorial nondisclosure/false‑testimony claim, and insufficiency of the evidence. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extrinsic evidence to impeach Brenes | State: exclusion proper because exhibits lacked authenticity and would confuse jury | Chemlen: exhibits were admissible extrinsic prior inconsistent statements material to intent to deceive Brenes | Court: no abuse of discretion — exhibits unauthenticated, speculative, confusing, and had limited probative value to defendant's intent |
| Prosecutor failure to correct known false testimony (Brady/Golding) | State: prosecutor questioned witness and believed testimony truthful; no Brady claim preserved | Chemlen: state knew exhibits showed Brenes knew defendant’s last name and thus allowed false testimony to stand, violating due process | Court: record inadequate under Golding — defendant failed to preserve; no factual findings that testimony was false or that state knew it was false; decline review |
| Sufficiency — forgery (intent & alteration) | State: photocopy of ID and DMV record, plus testimony, supported alteration and intent to deceive | Chemlen: insufficient — no original ID admitted; Brenes knew defendant’s last name so no intent to deceive | Held: sufficient evidence — photocopy and DMV record (admitted without objection) supported alteration; intent may be inferred and victim belief immaterial |
| Sufficiency — larceny (ownership/ theft) | State: evidence showed scheme to obtain funds by false promises and defendant kept funds, depriving owners | Chemlen: payments were to employer (National Credit Masters) or were later refunded, so no theft from the clients | Held: sufficient evidence — jury reasonably found defendant obtained clients’ money by false promises and did not remit funds; refunds or employer remediation did not negate theft |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence; suppression violates due process)
- State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547 (Conn. 1998) (prosecutor must correct substantially misleading testimony; false testimony requires new trial if it likely affected jury)
- Chief Information Officer v. Computers Plus Center, Inc., 310 Conn. 60 (Conn. 2013) (trial court evidentiary rulings receive broad deference; extrinsic impeachment limited)
- State v. Dickman, 119 Conn. App. 581 (Conn. App. 2010) (victim's belief is immaterial to intent element of forgery statute)
- State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (Conn. 2006) (record inadequate for Golding review where critical factual findings are absent and state not put on notice)
- State v. Dudley, 68 Conn. App. 405 (Conn. App. 2002) (court has discretion to admit extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements)
- State v. VanDeusen, 160 Conn. App. 815 (Conn. App. 2015) (standards for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Eubanks, 133 Conn. App. 105 (Conn. App. 2012) (inadmissible evidence received without objection becomes part of record for sufficiency review)