State v. Grant
112 A.3d 175
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- On April 30, 2011 a Pizza 101 delivery driver was shot while attempting to leave 502 Mary Shepard Place after a delivery; she identified Cecil Grant and an accomplice (Newkirk) in photographic arrays and at trial.
- Police developed suspects after interviewing Gustin Douglas, who had hosted Grant and Newkirk the night of the shooting and later identified them in photos; the victim made identifications about ten weeks after the incident.
- Grant was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery (1st degree), attempt to commit robbery (1st degree), and assault (1st degree); a jury convicted him and the court imposed an effective 60-year sentence (40 years to serve, remainder suspended).
- Pretrial, Grant moved to suppress the victim’s photographic and in-court identifications, arguing the array and procedures were unduly suggestive; the trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
- At trial the state cross-examined Grant about prior incidents after he denied owning a gun or shooting anyone; the court allowed limited questioning about a similar recent Franklin Package store robbery but no extrinsic proof was introduced.
- Grant alleged prosecutorial impropriety (sarcasm/aggressive questioning and a missing-witness comment about his mother made without Malave notice). The appellate court affirmed, finding no prejudicial error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of photographic and in-court IDs — suggestiveness | Array and procedures were proper; victim given instructions; identification reliable | Array unduly suggestive (Grant the only hoodie), police failed to follow best‑practice protocols (double‑blind, sequential), other photo discrepancies | Court: No undue suggestiveness; preserved hoodie claim rejected; unpreserved procedural complaints fail Golding review; suppression denial affirmed |
| Admission of uncharged misconduct evidence | No uncharged misconduct was admitted; prosecutor’s questions are not evidence; only limited questioning permitted | State elicited a “plethora” of prior‑bad‑act evidence and prejudiced jury | Court: No prior‑act evidence admitted; questions produced denials and no extrinsic proof offered; claim fails as matter of law |
| Prosecutorial impropriety — tone and sarcasm in cross and closings | Prosecutor’s forceful cross‑examination and rhetorical closing were fair comment on record | Sarcastic/denigrating tone and personal opinions about credibility deprived Grant of fair trial | Court: Remarks were within permissible advocacy and not objectively improper or prejudicial |
| Prosecutorial impropriety — missing‑witness (Malave) comment | State: argument about absence of mother was proper to highlight weak alibi (but conceded no advance notice) | Prosecutor violated Malave by commenting on absence of mother without advance notice, harming fairness | Court: Failure to give Malave notice was improper but isolated, not severe, and harmless given strength of evidence; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (framework for two‑prong suggestiveness and reliability analysis)
- State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762 (adopted and applied Outing analytical approach)
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (discussed expert testimony on eyewitness fallibility; did not make double‑blind sequential lineups constitutionally required)
- State v. Marquez, 291 Conn. 122 (nondouble‑blind arrays not per se unduly suggestive; case‑by‑case review)
- State v. Malave, 250 Conn. 722 (limits on arguing missing witnesses and requirement of advance notice)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (standard for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266 (limits on sarcasm and improper denigration by prosecutor; context matters)