State v. Clue
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 535
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Nov. 10, 2009: masked knife-wielding intruder robs 78-year-old Dorothy Bogues at her Danbury home; laptop and money are taken.
- Police search his home and vehicle; laptop found in basement bag with defendant's papers; bag in car trunk contains black mask/hooded jacket.
- A 911 call by Bogues shortly after the incident described the assault and fleeing suspect; officers arrived and investigated.
- Randall Bogues, Dorothy's son, later identified a man as a potential suspect based on his mother’s description and knowledge of Kevin Smith.
- Police later found Bogues’ laptop matching serial numbers in a bag with the defendant; marijuana was found on the defendant during a patdown.
- Trial court convicted the defendant of home invasion, first‑degree robbery, assault of an elderly person, second‑degree threatening, fifth‑degree larceny, and possession of marijuana; on appeal, the state argued the 911 recording and other evidence supported conviction despite claims of improper hearsay evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict home invasion/robbery/assault | State argues evidence tied defendant to the home and crime (laptop, bag, mask, proximity, lies, identification). | Clue contends eyewitness ID and related evidence are insufficient and 911 evidence is improperly admitted. | Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions. |
| Admission of the 911 call as testimonial hearsay | 911 call was non-testimonial/excited utterance; necessary to address ongoing emergency. | 911 statements are testimonial and violate confrontation clause. | Admission did not violate confrontation clause; not testimonial under Bryant/Davis framework. |
| Admissibility of Randall Bogues’ identification and mother’s description | Randall’s testimony and police descriptions linked defendant to the crime. | Record inadequate to determine if statements were testimonial; Golding review required. | Record inadequate to review; conclusion affirmed due to failure to satisfy Golding prong. |
| Golding review adequacy regarding testimonial evidence | Despite Defense, evidence corroborates guilt; Golding analysis not satisfied by record. | Record insufficient to assess whether statements were testimonial. | Golding prong failed; claims failing on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements in emergencies)
- State v. Serrano, 123 Conn. App. 530 (Conn. App. 2010) (test for testimonial nature of hearsay evidence under Crawford/Confrontation Clauses)
- State v. Rivera, 268 Conn. 351 (Conn. 2004) (scope of testimonial hearsay and reasonable expectation of use at trial)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (constitutional error not preserved requires Golding review)
- State v. Mish, 110 Conn. App. 245 (Conn. App. 2008) (proper framing of preserved/unpreserved error in review)