State v. Davis
107 A.3d 962
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Davis was convicted of robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree after a 2008 West Haven incident.
- During the robbery, Jones drove the car; Lowery and Backman accompanied Davis; guns were displayed by the others; victim Caple was robbed of items and money.
- The long form information alleged Davis committed robbery in the first degree and that he, or another participant, displayed or threatened a firearm.
- Overt act in the conspiracy count stated that a coconspirator threatened the victim with what was represented to be a firearm.
- The court instructed that any participant displaying or threatening a firearm could render all participants guilty of robbery in the first degree, even if Davis himself did not display a firearm.
- Defendant did not object to the jury instruction; on appeal, his claim was reviewed under Golding after remand by the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction enlarged the charged offense. | Davis | Davis | Disagreed with; no reversible error on enlargement basis. |
| Whether enlarging the instruction prejudiced Davis by hindering his defense. | Davis | Davis | No prejudice; defense encompassed both theories and could lead to acquittal. |
| Whether Davis had adequate notice of accessorial liability. | Davis | Davis | Not violated; information read together provided notice of accessorial liability. |
| Whether failure to object bars review under Golding; if review warranted. | Davis | Davis | Golding review applied; claim not clearly establishes denial of fair trial. |
| Whether the court should adapt jury instruction to charged theory. | Davis | Davis | Instruction properly adapted to issues; full statute reading avoided. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Correa, 241 Conn. 322 (1997) (notice of accessorial liability when conspiracy and overt act exist)
- State v. Hamlett, 105 Conn. App. 862 (2008) (principal/accessory liability treated as interchangeable theories)
- State v. Smith, 212 Conn. 593 (1989) (accessorial liability valid when evidence supports it)
- State v. Williams, 27 Conn. App. 654 (1992) (dual liability theories recognized; read with Kitchens guidance)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (limitations on instructing by full statute; avoid misleadings jury)
- State v. Peterson, 13 Conn. App. 76 (1987) (fully read statute can prejudice if uncharged theory dominates)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (test for unpreserved constitutional error: adequacy, magnitude, existence, harmlessness)
- State v. Trujillo, 12 Conn. App. 320 (1987) (preservation and review considerations in nonpreserved errors)
- State v. Franko, 199 Conn. 481 (1986) (preservation and review of unpreserved errors; harmless beyond reasonable doubt)