State v. Gomes, 193 Conn.App. 79

At a Bridgeport bar fight on Sept. 12, 2015, the victim was struck in the head with a bottle and suffered a deep laceration; the defendant (Gomes) was later identified in a photographic array and arrested.
Police responded to a chaotic scene and interviewed victims at the hospital; the initial on-scene investigation did not include scene photos or confirmed surveillance collection.
Detective Ortiz later showed the victim a photo array; she selected the defendant and wrote she was “100 percent” confident.
The defense’s primary theory at trial was investigative inadequacy: counsel argued police failed to secure the scene, collect photos or video, or otherwise confirm the ID, and requested a jury charge that expressly permitted consideration of investigative evidence as it related to weaknesses in the state’s case.
The court used a model instruction (Judicial Branch JI 2.6-14) but omitted the defense’s requested sentence, “However, you may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state’s case.”
The jury convicted Gomes of second‑degree assault; on appeal he argued the omission infringed his right to present a defense. The Appellate Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s omission of the requested sentence about considering police-investigation evidence denied the defendant the right to present an investigative-inadequacy defense	The State: the instruction given was correct, tracked the Judicial Branch model instruction and Connecticut precedent, and did not bar the jury from considering investigative deficiencies	Gomes: omitting the sentence left jurors without guidance on how to use evidence of investigative inadequacy to show weaknesses in the State’s case, thereby impairing his right to present a defense	The court affirmed: omission was not reversible error — the charge matched the model, is consistent with controlling Connecticut case law, the defense presented evidence and argued it to the jury, and the court instructed jurors to consider all evidence and to decide guilt based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Collins, 299 Conn. 567 (concluding a nearly identical jury instruction did not mislead the jury or violate the defendant’s right to present an investigative-inadequacy defense)
State v. Wright, 322 Conn. 270 (recognizing investigative-omission/adequacy evidence as a legitimate defensive strategy but addressing evidentiary sufficiency of the proffer)
State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 (upholding instruction focusing jury on guilt beyond reasonable doubt rather than abstract evaluation of police competence)
State v. Nieves, 106 Conn. App. 40 (same principle; appellate affirmation of instruction directing jury to weigh guilt in light of all evidence)
State v. Tate, 59 Conn. App. 282 (similar approval of instruction framing issue as guilt based on all evidence, not investigation thoroughness)
State v. Aviles, 277 Conn. 281 (reciting standard that requested charges need not be given verbatim if substance is covered)
State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 (noting uniformity with model instructions is a relevant factor in assessing adequacy of charge)