199 Conn.App. 172
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Victim shot on August 7, 2014; a baseball cap with DNA was recovered at the scene and a photo identification showed the defendant as a possible suspect.
- Defendant had DNA taken on September 9, 2014 after an unrelated New Haven arrest; that sample was not submitted to the state forensic laboratory until February 2016 and matched the cap in March 2016.
- Police submitted a draft arrest warrant July 2016; final warrant signed by affiant February 28, 2017 and by the court March 3, 2017 while defendant was in federal custody in New Hampshire; defendant was returned to Connecticut and arrested August 30, 2017.
- Defendant filed motions to dismiss arguing (1) preaccusation delay violated due process (substantial prejudice and intentional delay) and (2) postarrest delay violated the Sixth Amendment and the IAD 180‑day final‑disposition requirement.
- Trial court found no actual substantial prejudice from the preaccusation delay (at most negligent delay in submitting DNA), and held defendant had waived any postarrest speedy‑trial/IAD claim by executing successive waivers after arraignment; court denied motions to dismiss.
- Defendant entered a conditional nolo contendere plea to first‑degree assault, first‑degree robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm; appealed denial of the motions to dismiss; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preaccusation delay / Fourteenth Amendment due process | State: delay did not cause actual substantial prejudice and was not wholly unjustifiable. | Coleman: three‑year delay before arrest caused actual substantial prejudice and was deliberately used to gain tactical advantage. | Denied — defendant failed to prove actual substantial prejudice; most delay was at best negligent (e.g., late submission of DNA) and not a deliberate, unjustifiable tactic. |
| Postarrest delay / Sixth Amendment and IAD 180‑day rule | State: defendant waived postarrest speedy‑trial rights by executing waivers after arraignment. | Coleman: state failed to bring him to trial within a reasonable time and violated IAD 180‑day final‑disposition requirement. | Denied — defendant expressly and repeatedly waived postarrest speedy‑trial rights; waiver bars appellate review of these claims (IAD claim likewise fails). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (prosecutors need not file charges immediately upon probable cause; due process preaccusation‑delay claim requires unjustifiable delay and substantial prejudice)
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) (no constitutional duty to arrest the moment probable cause arises; investigators may continue fact‑finding)
- State v. Pugh, 190 Conn. App. 794 (2019) (explains elements of due process claim for preaccusation delay in Connecticut)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (2015) (modification of Golding review standard)