State v. Davis
26 A.3d 128
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- July 12, 2008, after 10 p.m., Davis and two others rode in a car with Gerard Jones; they went to a West Haven deli and then approached victim Dayshon Caple near a nearby restaurant.
- Davis brandished a revolver at Caple, and Lowery brandished a shotgun at Caple’s head during the robbery.
- Caple claimed he had nothing of value; the group searched Caple’s clothing and stole his cellular phone, marijuana, and wallet containing about $40.
- They returned to the car with Caple’s possessions; Caple later fled to a gas station and called family members; Jones provided information to police about the events.
- Jones testified for the State that Davis was the assailant who pointed the shotgun, while Jones himself had a plea agreement and testified for consideration at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the robbery-in-the-first-degree instruction was properly preserved | Davis argues the instruction expanded liability beyond the information | State asserts implied waiver per Kitchens framework | Waived; instruction effectively mirrored the state's theory and was implicitly accepted |
| Whether implied waiver applies to jury instruction claims | Davis contends no waiver due to oral hearing and lack of written copy | State relies on Kitchens’ implicit waiver categories | Implicit waiver found under Kitchens; conduct showed familiarity and acceptance of the instruction |
| Whether the court’s robbery instruction was identical to the state’s requested instruction | Defense notes possible deviation from the exact language | State’s and court’s instruction mirrored the standard robbery first-degree elements | Instruction was identical in substance; compliant with request |
| Whether the defendant’s lack of objection at trial negates appellate review under Golding | Claim is constitutional in nature and preserved by Golding | Waiver applies; defendant accepted instruction | Golding claim rejected due to implicit waiver |
| Whether the court properly used the information to expand liability theory | Information alleged armed with a firearm; instruction allowed accomplice liability for firearm display | No unlawful expansion beyond information; theory supported by law | No reversible error; theory properly conveyed to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (establishes Golding review for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (implied waiver categories for jury instruction claims)
- State v. Fabricatore, 281 Conn. 469 (2007) (bears on implied waiver and review)
- State v. Stewart, 64 Conn. App. 340 (2001) (counsel’s representations govern trial content decisions)
- State v. Michael A., 297 Conn. 808 (2010) (discusses Golding-type review framework)