178 Conn. App. 575
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Tyriece S. Fuller was convicted after a jury trial of multiple offenses including conspiracy to steal a firearm, conspiracy to commit larceny, several narcotics offenses (including within 1500 feet of a school), and criminal possession of a firearm. One burglary conspiracy charge was dismissed at trial.
- Charges arose from controlled purchases and a task force investigation in Bridgeport in 2012. Defendant did not testify at trial.
- Defense counsel requested permission under Practice Book § 40-10 to provide the defendant with redacted copies of the state’s disclosure; trial judges denied those requests, citing security and prior rulings. The defendant reviewed disclosed materials in counsel’s presence and via other means (FOIA, courthouse review, attorney review in jail).
- After conviction, Fuller argued on appeal that denying him personal possession of discovery violated his federal and state constitutional rights (counsel, due process, fair trial), and alternatively that the trial court abused its discretion or committed structural error.
- The trial court denied motions to give Fuller copies; appellate review focused on whether the constitutional claim was preserved and whether the denial constituted an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying defendant personal possession of discovery violated constitutional rights (counsel, due process, fair trial) | State: denial did not implicate constitutional rights; discovery is procedural under Practice Book | Fuller: denial deprived him of ability to assist counsel and impaired rights to counsel and due process | Not reviewable on preserved constitutional grounds; claim fails Golding prong that discovery denial is constitutional magnitude |
| Whether denial of discovery copies was an abuse of discretion | State: court reasonably protected jail security and prior rulings; defendant had access via counsel | Fuller: needed copies to meaningfully participate and review evidence | No abuse of discretion — defendant had multiple opportunities to review materials with counsel or agents and no compelling reason shown for separate possession |
| Whether any error was structural | State: any error, if at all, was harmless or non-structural | Fuller: if constitutional error, it was structural and required reversal | Court did not reach structural error claim because it found no improper denial of personal possession |
| Whether defendant’s motions and pro se filings preserved constitutional claim | State: motions were not framed as constitutional claims; hybrid representation not allowed | Fuller: his counsel filed motions requesting redacted copies; those preserved the issue | Claims were not properly preserved as constitutional; court declined to consider them under Golding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (defendant may obtain review of unpreserved constitutional claims if four-part test met)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (modification of Golding framework)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (criminal defendant has no general constitutional right to discovery)
- State v. Sewell, 95 Conn. App. 815 (procedural discovery rights under Practice Book do not themselves create constitutional rights)
- State v. Gethers, 197 Conn. 369 (no right to hybrid representation)