State v. Dickson, 150 Conn.App. 637

Victim Akeem Lyles arranged a Craigslist meeting to rob buyers; on Jan. 9, 2010 Lyles, Giovanni Reyes, and defendant Andrew Dickson went armed to Terrace Circle, Bridgeport.
Albert Weibel and Matthew Shaw arrived as buyers; the three men confronted, assaulted, and robbed them; Dickson held a .38 and, after others fled, shot Weibel in the leg and neck.
Weibel could not identify the shooter from a police photo array; at trial he made an in‑court identification of Dickson seated at counsel table.
Lyles (cooperating witness with plea deal) identified Dickson and testified Dickson admitted shooting because they got no money; Shaw also could not identify from photos.
Jury convicted Dickson of first‑degree assault and conspiracy to commit first‑degree robbery; sentenced to 25 years plus 10 years special parole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dickson)	Held
Admissibility of in‑court identification	In‑court ID was permissible; no impermissible out‑of‑court ID tainted it	In‑court identification (defendant seated alone at counsel table) was unnecessarily suggestive and should be precluded or alternative lineup ordered	Court did not abuse discretion; no out‑of‑court taint and adversary process (cross‑examination) protected reliability; ID admissible
Juror misconduct from e‑mail sent from juror's account	Juror’s household sent an e‑mail about a .38 but the recipient did not reply; no extrinsic information reached jury	Mistrial required or juror replacement because e‑mail was evidence‑specific and could have prejudiced deliberations	Court’s inquiry (individual juror questioning) and finding that no outside information was received was within discretion; mistrial not required
Jury instruction wording on presumption	Standard charge that defendant is "presumed innocent" correctly protects rights	Requested instruction substituting "presumed not guilty" is preferable and alters protection	Charge using "presumed innocent" was legally correct when read as a whole and did not mislead jury

State v. Smith, 200 Conn. 465 (Conn. 1986) (in‑court identifications need not be excluded absent taint from an impermissible out‑of‑court identification)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (identification testimony's weight is for jury; reliability issues addressed by cross‑examination)
State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502 (Conn. 1995) (trial court has broad discretion in responding to juror misconduct allegations)
State v. Merriam, 264 Conn. 617 (Conn. 2003) (trial court must conduct preliminary on‑the‑record inquiry when presented with possible juror misconduct)
State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2012) (expert testimony admissible on factors affecting eyewitness reliability)
Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle protecting accused)
State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141 (Conn. 2007) (instructional impropriety re: presumption of innocence is constitutional in magnitude)
State v. Lavigne, 307 Conn. 592 (Conn. 2012) (jury charge reviewed as a whole for correctness and potential to mislead)
State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280 (Conn. 2000) (defendant must show juror bias moves claim from speculation to fact)
State v. Feliciano, 256 Conn. 429 (Conn. 2001) (when court not responsible for juror misconduct defendant must prove actual prejudice)