State v. Diaz
25 A.3d 594
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Diaz was convicted of murder, carry of a pistol without a permit, and criminal possession of a pistol.
- Three state witnesses—McIntosh, Ortiz, and Jefferson—testified they saw Diaz commit the murder; each had pending charges or leverage with the system.
- Trial court gave a general credibility instruction; defense urged a special admonition about these witnesses' potential benefits from the state.
- Defense argued Patterson and Arroyo require a special instruction for jailhouse informants or those with state benefits; Ortiz was an ex-convict; Jefferson was incarcerated.
- The State argued there was no plain error since witnesses’ motivation was disclosed and no promises were shown; cross-examination provided defense with tools.
- Appellate court upheld the conviction, declining a general supervisory rule to require a special credibility instruction in all such cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plain error occurred by not sua sponte giving a credibility instruction | Diaz argues Patterson/Arroyo require it for witnesses facing benefits | Diaz contends failure to instruct is plain error given witness incentives | No plain error; court allowed discretion not to issue sua sponte |
| Whether supervisory powers should require universal credibility instruction | Diaz seeks rule applying to any witness in system with potential benefit | State opposes broad supervisory rule; argues discretion suffices | No general supervisory rule; no expansion of Patterson/Arroyo beyond existing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (2005) (established jailhouse informant exception to credibility instruction)
- State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (2009) (expanded rule to require instruction for jailhouse informants regardless of express promise)
- State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 (2009) (plain error standard; supports non-sua sponte failure here given guidance given)
- State v. Lemoine, 233 Conn. 502 (1995) (trial court may comment on witness credibility; discretion in jury charges)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (Golding standards for constitutional claims (non-applicable here))