State v. Fleury, 42 A.3d 499

Undercover detective Huggins arranged to purchase a handgun from Similien for $500, planned to resell at a Milford Pilot truck stop, with six to seven unmarked cars and binocular surveillance.
The exchange occurred on Linwood Avenue in Bridgeport; a brown bag containing a operable .22 caliber handgun was delivered to the truck, which Huggins inspected and approved.
The defendant, along with Similien and Fritze Dorce, participated in the gun transaction; a green tattoo on the defendant’s neck was observed and photographed by officers.
Agents followed the Infiniti after the sale, stopping it later at the VIP Car Wash on Main Street; Amato identified the defendant and other occupants visually and by state IDs.
The defendant never possessed or applied for a permit to carry a pistol, and there is no record of him applying for permission to sell a pistol.
The state charged the defendant in a four-count information under the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Act and related conspiracy provisions, combining gun and narcotics offenses for trial; voir dire occurred November 16–18, 2009, with a later sua sponte severance separating gun charges from narcotics charges to ensure one trial could conclude before year’s end; the defendant objected to severance, defense counsel supported severance for trial strategy, and the court granted severance and precluded gang/drug evidence in the gun trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether severance violated the defendant’s right to an impartial jury	Fleury contends severance deprived him of impartiality by forcing two trials and exposing jurors to different charges	Fleury objected to severance; argues it prejudiced him and undermined speedy-trial rights	No reversible prejudice; severance is a trial tactic within court discretion
Whether the evidence sufficiently proves the defendant’s identity as the gun seller	State asserts strong identification from multiple officers linking the defendant to the gun sale	Fleury challenges sufficiency of identity proof	Sufficient evidence supports identity; multiple in-court identifications and corroborating observations established guilt beyond reasonable doubt

State v. Thompson, 81 Conn.App. 264 (2004) (trial court may sever joined offenses; no manifest abuse of discretion)
State v. Bell, 93 Conn.App. 650 (2006) (broad discretion in severance; the defendant’s rights tied to trial strategy)
State v. Berube, 256 Conn. 742 (2001) (separation of joined informations; defendant objected to joinder/severance)
State v. Gore, 288 Conn. 770 (2008) (counsel controls trial strategy; decisions may be tactical, not personal rights)
State v. Stewart, 64 Conn.App. 340 (2001) (defendant’s tactical trial decisions rest with counsel; no hybrid representation)
State v. Rivera, 129 Conn.App. 619 (2011) (counsel’s trial decisions may govern; effectiveness standard for appellate review)
State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1 (2003) (presumption jurors follow trial court instructions; no prejudice shown by voir dire disclosures)