State v. Harris, 183 Conn. App. 865

Background

Defendant Jermaine Harris was charged with murder, conspiracy, felony murder, first‑degree robbery, carrying a pistol without a permit (jury trial), and criminal possession of a firearm (bench trial). The jury on the other counts was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared.
Harris elected a court trial on the criminal possession charge; the trial court found him guilty under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-217(a)(1) and sentenced him to five years (statutory maximum).
Key evidence included coconspirator Tevin Williams’ testimony that Harris brandished and used guns during a string of armed robberies, Williams’ identification of Harris on surveillance video, Williams’ account that Harris shot the victim and left a gun by the body, and ballistics showing two guns fired multiple rounds.
At sentencing the court referenced facts about Harris having used a gun to shoot the victim; Harris argued the court impermissibly relied on findings about the murder (a jury issue) in convicting/sentencing him on the firearm possession charge.
Harris also challenged sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that absent any judicial finding that he was the shooter there was no independent proof he possessed a firearm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Harris)	Held
Whether the court’s finding/guided sentence violated constitutional rights (jury trial, due process, presumption of innocence) by relying on facts about the murder	Court may consider all evidence presented at trial and may reach findings differing from the jury; its findings were supported by reliable evidence	Court impermissibly based possession finding and sentence on a determination that Harris committed the murder—depriving him of jury adjudication	Denied: no constitutional violation; court properly considered the evidence and was not collaterally estopped by the jury’s mistrial; sentencing evidence had minimal indicia of reliability
Whether the sentencing court improperly considered pending charges or a factual finding about murder in imposing the statutory maximum	Sentencing judges may consider broad, reliable information; the court expressly said it did not consider pending charges’ validity	Sentence premised on the court’s determination that Harris was the shooter (a jury question)	Denied: court relied on reliable testimony and records and did not run afoul of Apprendi principles
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove actual possession of a firearm under § 53a-217(a)(1)	Williams’ testimony, surveillance video, ballistics, and other physical evidence establish Harris had possession/dominion over a firearm	Without a judicial finding that Harris was the shooter, there is no independent proof he possessed a gun	Denied: sufficient evidence existed (Williams’ testimony corroborated by video and ballistics)
Whether unpreserved constitutional claims warrant Golding or plain error review	Evidence and record adequate; no constitutional error, so review not warranted	Seeks Golding/plain error/supervisory review because claims unpreserved	Denied: claims fail Golding third prong; no plain error or supervisory intervention warranted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Knight, 266 Conn. 658 (2003) (trial court sitting with a jury may make factual findings that differ from jury; collateral estoppel does not apply when charges are allocated between triers on similar evidence)
State v. Sabato, 321 Conn. 729 (2015) (finder of fact may consider all evidence adduced at trial in evaluating culpability)
State v. Pena, 301 Conn. 669 (2011) (sentencing inquiry may be broad; courts may rely on information with minimal indicia of reliability)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Reed, 176 Conn. App. 537 (2017) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence most favorably to sustaining verdict and ask whether factfinder reasonably could conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Williams, 172 Conn. App. 820 (2017) (a conviction may rest solely on the testimony of one witness if credible and corroborated)