164 Conn.App. 318
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Daniel B. (defendant) met with a purported hit man (undercover Officer Paleski) after asking a friend, John Evans, to find someone to murder his wife; the meeting was recorded and lasted ~16 minutes.
- During the meeting the defendant agreed to pay $10,000 (with a $3,000 down payment and $800 for a firearm the next day), provided the victim’s name, home and work addresses, schedule, vehicle description, suggested timing and method to provide an alibi, and twice confirmed he wanted his wife killed.
- The defendant was arrested immediately after the meeting; charged with attempt to commit murder and violating a protective order; convicted by a jury of attempted murder and acquitted on the protective order charge.
- At pretrial the court reviewed sealed Stamford Police records showing Evans had served as a confidential informant on multiple occasions and had received only minor reimbursements; the court disclosed to defense counsel the substance (but not all source details) and denied broader access to the records.
- On the eve of trial the state sought limits on cross-examination about Evans’ police contacts; the court allowed inquiry into number of investigations, payments, expectations in this case, and other considerations but disallowed certain officer-specific questioning.
- Defendant asserted on appeal: insufficient evidence (no substantial step), wrongful limitation on informant records, improper restriction of cross-examination, and defective jury instructions on "substantial step" and entrapment. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (attempt: substantial step) | State: video plus Evans’ testimony showed defendant took substantial steps (agreement, price, down payment plan, victim details, method/time, two confirmations). | Daniel: meeting was mere preparation/solicitation; no payment and too much remained to be done. | Affirmed — focus is on what actor already did; evidence was strongly corroborative of criminal purpose and sufficient for attempt. |
| Access to confidential informant records | State: produced sealed records and summarized relevant disclosures; no exculpatory material in sealed docs. | Daniel: he needed full records for impeachment/exculpatory material; court abused discretion by sealing parts. | Affirmed — in camera review showed no material exculpatory evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Scope of cross-examination of informant Evans | State: limited questions protect informant confidentiality and safety; defense allowed core lines (payments, expectations, prior benefits). | Daniel: excluded officer-specific questioning inhibited ability to show bias and violated confrontation/presentation rights. | Affirmed — defendant had adequate opportunity to test credibility and bias; limits were not unconstitutional or an abuse of discretion. |
| Jury instructions: "substantial step" and entrapment | State: instructions tracked statute and model jury charges; sufficient without reading statutory examples verbatim. | Daniel: court should have defined "substantial step" with statutory examples and broader entrapment language to include persons acting with public servant cooperation. | Affirmed — charge correctly followed Model Penal Code approach and model instructions; no reasonable possibility jury was misled; entrapment charge adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 317 Conn. 845 (Conn. 2015) (focus on what defendant already did for attempt analysis)
- State v. Osbourne, 138 Conn. App. 518 (Conn. App. 2012) (substantial-step test focuses on acts already undertaken and whether they strongly corroborate criminal purpose)
- State v. Lapia, 202 Conn. 509 (Conn. 1987) (discussing competing approaches to substantial-step inquiry)
- State v. Servello, 59 Conn. App. 362 (Conn. App. 2000) (agreement to hire an agent can be substantial step; payment not required for attempt)
- State v. Santiago, 224 Conn. 325 (Conn. 1992) (limitations on cross-examination can violate confrontation where critical to credibility)
- State v. Griggs, 288 Conn. 116 (Conn. 2008) (attempted murder requires intent plus substantial step; actual injury not required)
- United States v. Leja, 568 F.2d 493 (6th Cir. 1977) (informant payment history can be highly relevant to bias; distinguishable on facts)