151 Conn.App. 183
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant, Marash Gojcaj, murdered his uncle, then disposed of the body in New York after an April 2004 sequence at Gusto Ristorante in Danbury, CT.
- Evidence showed simultaneous CT location and later discovery of body parts in New York; alarm, CCTV/phone records, and witnesses tied the killing to Connecticut.
- Defendant’s movement included CT-based actions (driving, removing items from Gusto’s, carpeting replacement) and later travel to New York before body parts were found.
- Security-system logs, telephone data, and eyewitness Braden placed the crime and disposal in CT around April 5, 2004.
- Defendant was convicted of murder under CT § 53a-54a after trial and now challenges jurisdiction, suppression, business-record evidence, and a consciousness-of-guilt instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CT had territorial jurisdiction over the murder | State argued murder occurred in CT, supported by CT-centric acts and evidence | Gojcaj contended lack of CT killing location, challenging jurisdiction | Territorial jurisdiction established beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether the panel-log alarm data was admissible under the Fourth Amendment | State asserted no reasonable expectation of privacy; log falls within third-party data sharing | Defendant lacked privacy in panel-log information | Panel-log admissible; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether the panel-log was admissible under the business-record hearsay exception | State claimed it fit business-record exception as computer-generated data | Log not kept in ordinary course of business or transmitted by a business duty | Panel-log not hearsay; admissible as a business record or, at least, not hearsay error |
| Whether the consciousness of guilt instruction was properly issued | Evidence supported instruction based on defendant’s conduct after the offense | No proper objection, so issue not properly before court | Instruction not reconsidered on appeal; preserved objection lacking; affirmed |
| Whether other evidentiary rulings and standard of review applied correctly | Court correctly admitted records; reviews are plenary for legal conclusions | Challenged various rulings; not all were properly preserved | No reversal on these grounds; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Na'im B., 288 Conn. 290 (2008) (sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove territorial jurisdiction)
- State v. Volpe, 113 Conn. 288 (1931) (general rule punishes offenses within CT; territorial jurisdiction)
- State v. Beverly, 224 Conn. 372 (1993) (burden of proving territorial jurisdiction; standard discussed)
- State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183 (1994) (territorial-jurisdiction proof beyond reasonable doubt (dicta referenced))