State v. Cote
136 Conn. App. 427
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Defendant Joseph Cote was convicted after a jury trial of burglary in the third degree and larceny in the second degree.
- The larceny amount involved was $8,000, under the law in effect at the time of the offense.
- The offenses were committed in January 2009; CT and RI properties and scenes were involved, with related vehicle and jewelry evidence linking to the crime.
- Police recovered jewelry, tools, and a bag of stolen items; jewelry matched items stolen from the Stonington property.
- Public Acts 2009, No. 09-138 raised the larceny threshold later in 2009; the defense argued retroactive application to Cote’s case.
- The trial court declined to apply the amendment retroactively; the state preserved savings provisions; sentencing followed the pre-amendment statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive effect of P.A. 09-138 | Cote argues ameliorative statute applies retroactively. | Cote contends amendment should apply to pre-enactment offenses. | Amendment not applied retroactively. |
| Sufficiency of burglary evidence | Evidence shows unlawful entry or joint participation. | Insufficient to prove entry into the Stonington home. | Evidence sufficient; jury could infer unlawful entry. |
| Joinder and severance with Kalil | Joinder was proper despite Kalil's outbursts. | Motion to sever should have been granted due to prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; no manifest prejudice from joinder. |
| State constitutional and preservation issue | Constitutional issue preserved via Golding review. | Golding standards apply; claims preserved. | Claim not preserved; Golding analysis unsuccessful given retroactivity ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nowell, 262 Conn. 686 (2003) (retrospective application of amendments; presumption for prospective effect)
- State v. Graham, 56 Conn. App. 507 (2000) (amelioration doctrine not adopted in Connecticut)
- Castonguay v. Commissioner of Correction, 300 Conn. 649 (2011) (recognition of absence of amelioration retroactivity in Connecticut)
- State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (2010) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency and jury guidance)
- State v. Correa, 57 Conn. App. 98 (2000) (circumstantial evidence supports burglary conviction)
- State v. Ortiz, 252 Conn. 533 (2000) (standard for deciding joinder versus severance)
- State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (2012) (joinder standard for multiple informations; burden on defendant)