184 Conn. App. 595
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On May 28, 2011, Madeline Griffin set fire to her mother’s Stratford home; investigators found gasoline as an accelerant and a partially melted gas can.
- Neighbors (Carmen Febles, Juan Febles, Karen Wakeley) saw the fire, encountered Griffin at the scene, later identified her from photographic arrays, and made in-court identifications at trial.
- Griffin’s car (left in the mother’s garage) contained valuables and documents belonging to her and her mother; the mother later filed a homeowners’ insurance claim for the house; Griffin filed a claim for her car.
- Griffin was charged and convicted of first‑degree arson, conspiracy to commit first‑degree arson, and two counts of insurance fraud; she moved to suppress the pretrial and in‑court identifications.
- Trial court denied suppression; jury convicted on all counts; appellate court affirmed except it reversed the insurance‑fraud conviction tied to the mother’s homeowners claim because there was no evidence Griffin participated in making or preparing that insurance statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Griffin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were pretrial photographic arrays unduly suggestive so as to require suppression? | Arrays and procedures were proper: 8 photos, standard instructions, no highlighting, single array per witness. | Arrays were suggestive: defendant’s photo differed in age/appearance, she was the only one smiling, and photos were shown simultaneously. | Denied suppression; arrays not unconstitutionally suggestive; in‑court IDs admissible. |
| Was there sufficient evidence Griffin intended to collect insurance proceeds to support first‑degree arson (§ 53a‑111(a)(3))? | Circumstantial evidence (stashing valuables, mother’s packing and filing claim) supported an inference of intent to defraud. | No direct evidence she intended to collect homeowner’s insurance proceeds. | Conviction sustained: reasonable jury could infer specific intent to defraud from circumstantial evidence. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of conspiracy to commit arson? | Griffin’s conduct and coordination with mother supported inference of shared intent. | Insufficient proof of requisite mens rea to conspire. | Conviction sustained: evidence supported inference Griffin had requisite intent. |
| Was there sufficient evidence Griffin violated § 53a‑215(a)(2) (assisting in making/preparing mother’s insurance statement)? | The state argued overall scheme to defraud supported the insurance‑fraud conviction. | No evidence Griffin participated in making or preparing the homeowner’s insurance statement. | Reversed as to § 53a‑215(a)(2): statute requires conduct related to making/preparing the claim and record contained no such proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (framework for assessing eyewitness identification reliability)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (identification procedures must not create substantial likelihood of misidentification)
- State v. Marquez, 291 Conn. 122 (Conn. 2009) (two‑pronged test for suggestiveness and guidance on photo array evaluation)
- State v. Fullwood, 193 Conn. 238 (Conn. 1984) (array irregularities relevant to suggestiveness inquiry)
- State v. Joyce, 243 Conn. 282 (Conn. 1997) (specific intent requirement for arson to collect insurance proceeds)
- State v. Woodson, 227 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1993) (elements of first‑degree arson)