State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826

Defendant Wagner Gomes was convicted of second‑degree assault based on the victim’s identification after an altercation at a Bridgeport club; identification came from a photographic array two weeks post‑incident.
Defense theory was investigative inadequacy: police allegedly failed to secure the scene, interview numerous eyewitnesses, obtain surveillance, or meaningfully investigate an alternative suspect (Morais).
Defense submitted a written jury charge requesting explicit language that the jury “may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state’s case.” The trial court used the Judicial Branch model instruction but omitted that sentence; defense objected.
Jury convicted; Appellate Court affirmed, reasoning the model instruction matched prior approvals (Williams, Collins) and was adequate; defendant was deported while appeal was pending and record did not disclose the basis for deportation.
Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification, held (1) the appeal was not moot despite deportation (overruling Aquino), and (2) the model instruction as given created a reasonable possibility that the jury was misled about considering investigative lapses — reversal and new trial ordered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness due to deportation	Appeal moot if deportation origin unknown (per Aquino)	Reputational collateral consequences preserve justiciability	Appeal not moot; reputational harm is cognizable; Aquino overruled
Adequacy of investigative‑inadequacy instruction	Model instruction was correct and neutral; matched prior approvals	Omission of requested sentence prevented jury from considering investigation weaknesses	Instruction could have misled jury; defendant entitled to new trial
Consistency of model instruction with precedent (Williams, Collins, Wright)	Model mirrors prior approved language; Wright not overrule of instructions	Wright and Collins require express notice that defense may rely on investigative lapses to raise reasonable doubt	Model instruction omitted critical language affirmed in Williams/Collins and clarified by Wright; therefore inadequate
Prejudice / harmlessness	Reasonable‑doubt instruction and charge cured any defect; any error harmless	State’s case was weak and turned on a single identification; omission was harmful	Error was harmful given weak identification evidence; reversal and new trial required

State v. Collins, 299 Conn. 567 (explaining defendant may rely on investigative deficiencies to raise reasonable doubt)
State v. Wright, 322 Conn. 270 (describing the inference juries may draw from inadequate investigations and evidentiary thresholds for such defenses)
State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 (earlier approval of an instruction noting defense entitled to investigate and present evidence)
State v. Aquino, 279 Conn. 293 (prior decision dismissing appeal as moot after deportation; overruled here)
State v. Jerzy G., 326 Conn. 206 (recognized tension in Aquino and questioned its approach to collateral consequences)