188 Conn. App. 635
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Timolyn Dunbar was on probation after narcotics and failure-to-appear convictions; probation forbade new criminal conduct.
- A confidential informant made a controlled purchase of crack; Detective Mark Heinmiller and task force kept the informant under surveillance and observed a hand‑to‑hand sale.
- The seller walked within ~5 feet of Heinmiller; the informant later gave a written statement and said the seller identified herself as "Timberlyn/Timberland."
- Officers suggested the seller might be Dunbar; Heinmiller queried a probation database, obtained Dunbar’s photograph, and immediately identified her as the seller. The photograph was admitted without objection.
- Dunbar was arrested, charged with violating probation; at the revocation hearing Heinmiller identified Dunbar in court and the trial court found a probation violation. Dunbar appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for probation violation | State: Heinmiller’s in‑court ID and surveillance observations suffice by preponderance | Dunbar: ID rests on unreliable hearsay from confidential informant and suggestive photo ID | Court: Finding supported; court may credit witness credibility; not clearly erroneous |
| Due process — out‑of‑court photo ID procedure | State: Issue not preserved; record inadequate for review | Dunbar: Photo from probation database was suggestive and violated due process under Neil v. Biggers | Court: Unpreserved; no suppression/objection so trial court made no findings; record inadequate under Golding; claim fails |
| Due process — in‑court ID tainted by prior suggestive ID | State: Derivative claim fails if out‑of‑court ID not reviewable | Dunbar: In‑court ID irreparably tainted by suggestive database photo | Court: Fails because out‑of‑court ID challenge is not reviewable; in‑court claim fails accordingly |
| Right to confront adverse witness (confidential informant) | State: Denial of informant ID disclosure was within court’s discretion; due process limited in revocation setting | Dunbar: Court should have balanced her confrontation interest vs. state’s reasons under Shakir/Roviaro and ordered disclosure | Court: Unpreserved at hearing (no Shakir balancing requested); record inadequate for Golding review; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (framework for assessing reliability of identification after suggestive procedures)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (reliability as linchpin in admissibility of identification testimony)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standard for unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
- State v. Harris, 330 Conn. 91 (Conn. 2018) (Connecticut discussion of identification admissibility and state constitutional protection)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957) (balancing informer’s privilege against defendant’s need for disclosure)
- State v. Shakir, 130 Conn. App. 458 (Conn. App. 2011) (articulating balancing test for confronting adverse witness in probation revocation)
- State v. Collins, 124 Conn. App. 249 (Conn. App. 2010) (holding record inadequate where no suppression/objection to pretrial identification)