State v. Daley, 161 Conn.App. 861

Background

On July 4, 2010 Roland McLennon was shot dead on Edna Avenue in Bridgeport; defendant Marlando Daley was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to 40 years.
Key eyewitness: Byron McLennon Jr. (decedent’s brother) later identified the defendant from a photo array and testified (videotaped) that he saw his brother approach a black Mercedes SUV and that the defendant — whom he recognized as “Massup” — fired.
Defendant offered an alibi: several witnesses placed him at a party and then at home around the relevant time; defendant did not testify.
During deliberations the jury asked several questions, requested playback of testimony, and asked what would happen if they could not reach unanimity; the judge told them the case would be tried over if they could not agree and twice gave jury instructions emphasizing that jurors must make conscientious decisions and not surrender honest opinions (Chip Smith–style language).
A juror (M.C.) privately told the judge she faced financial hardship if jurors continued beyond five days; the judge told her (in chambers) he did not want to excuse her because only one alternate remained and they might have to "start the whole process over again."
Defendant proffered late-in-the-trial an audio recording of a police officer calling dispatch to report his mother said she was nearly struck by a black, older-model Jeep Cherokee near the time/place of the shooting; the court excluded the recording as hearsay (sustained objection), finding the mother’s reported statement not admissible as a spontaneous utterance.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Daley's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court coerced jury by telling them a mistrial would result if they could not reach unanimity or by telling juror M.C. the court did not want to "start all over again"	The court’s explanation of possible mistrial and reinstruction were appropriate responses to jury questions and did not coerce; instructions included admonitions not to surrender honest beliefs.	The judge’s statements about a mistrial and to M.C. were coercive, pressuring jurors to agree to avoid retrial or continued service.	No coercion: reviewing instructions in context, court’s repeated Chip Smith–type guidance and circumstances made coercion not reasonably probable; claim fails under Golding third prong.
Whether the court erred in excluding audio of officer reporting his mother’s statement that a Jeep nearly struck her (hearsay within hearsay)	The recording was testimonial/business-record-like and the officer’s report could be admissible; the mother’s statement was spontaneous and thus admissible.	The recording was admissible (business-record exception for officer’s report and spontaneous utterance exception for mother’s statement).	No error: even assuming the officer’s entry might qualify as a business record, the mother’s out-of-court statement was not shown to be a spontaneous utterance (no timeline or signs of stress), so exclusion was within court’s discretion.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385 (court examines jury coercion from judge’s statements)
State v. Ralls, 167 Conn. 408 (instructions must be read in context; Chip Smith charge discussion)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (preservation and review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (modification of Golding’s third-prong review)
State v. McArthur, 96 Conn. App. 155 (prefatory mention of mistrial cured by full Chip Smith charge)
State v. O’Neill, 200 Conn. 268 (potential coercion when judge mentions mistrial)
State v. Feliciano, 256 Conn. 429 (describing Chip Smith balanced instruction)