196 Conn.App. 228
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- On Oct. 13, 2014, Nasir Hargett (age 18) retrieved a sawed-off .22 gun after a man later identified as Davon Robertson behaved "weirdly" on Hargett's porch; Hargett followed Robertson down the street and fired three shots; Robertson died; no weapon found on him.
- Eyewitness McAllister testified Hargett called to Robertson, they "locked eyes," exchanged words, and Hargett shot; surveillance video showed Hargett following then fleeing the scene.
- Autopsy showed fatal gunshot wounds; an independent toxicology report detected PCP in Robertson's system; a bystander allegedly told others Robertson had robbed her at knifepoint.
- Before and at trial the state disclosed a recovered Marlin .22 sawed-off shotgun and firearms expert reports late (during jury selection); defense sought sanctions, a continuance, or dismissal; the court denied sanctions and later admitted the gun and tools into evidence.
- Jury convicted Hargett of murder and found he used a firearm; he appealed claiming (1) exclusion of bystander statement and toxicology violated his right to present a defense, (2) the court erred by refusing a self-defense instruction, (3) the court abused discretion regarding late firearms disclosure and sanctions, and (4) prosecutorial impropriety in closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hargett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of unidentified bystander's statement | Statement is hearsay, irrelevant to defendant's state of mind, and prejudicial | Statement was non‑hearsay (showing it was made) and relevant to Hargett's perceived danger/self‑defense; toxicology relevant to victim's aggressiveness | Affirmed. Court properly excluded both: defendant failed to lay foundation that he heard/believed the statement or that it influenced his state of mind; toxicology not causally tied to shooting and was irrelevant to self‑defense; state disproved self‑defense beyond reasonable doubt. |
| 2. Denial of jury instruction on self‑defense | No evidence defendant reasonably believed he faced imminent deadly force | "Locking eyes" and prior conduct (victim acting "weird"/PCP) warranted instruction | Affirmed. No reasonable juror could find imminent or immediate danger—no threats, gestures, or assaults supporting deadly‑force belief. |
| 3. Late disclosure of gun and ballistic reports; sanctions/new trial | Late disclosure was not in bad faith; reports and gun disclosed before expert testimony; continuance/inspection possible | Late disclosure prejudiced defense and compromised plea/trial preparation; dismissal or sanction warranted | Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion: no bad faith, defendant had access before testimony and declined offered continuance/inspection; defendant failed to show how further expert analysis would have advanced his self‑defense theory. |
| 4. Prosecutorial impropriety in closing ("murdered in cold blood," "senseless American tragedy") | Rhetorical devices were grounded in evidence; not central or repeated; one isolated phrase | "In cold blood" and emotional appeals were improper and deprived Hargett of a fair trial | Affirmed. Court conceded "in cold blood" was improper under Albino but found the remark harmless: defense used the same phrase, no timely objection, limited use, not central, curative instruction given, and the state's case was strong. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miranda, 327 Conn. 451 (2018) (setting limits on appellate review of evidentiary claims and preservation requirements)
- State v. Cerreta, 260 Conn. 251 (2002) (standard for relevancy and trial court discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Lewis, 245 Conn. 779 (1998) (self‑defense instruction: subjective‑objective test and imminence requirement)
- State v. Fritz, 204 Conn. 156 (1987) (admission of toxicology evidence where causation or relevance to charged conduct is shown)
- State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763 (2014) (closing‑argument limits; "in cold blood" may be improper when lesser offenses are supported)
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (factors for assessing prejudicial prosecutorial impropriety)
- State v. Respass, 256 Conn. 164 (2001) (discovery violation sanctions: considerations and trial court discretion)
- State v. Festo, 181 Conn. 254 (1980) (purpose of criminal discovery and sanctioning framework)