State v. Holley
167 A.3d 1000
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 11, 2012 Middletown police executed a warrant on a third‑party residence; officers then encountered defendant Ever Lee Holley nearby. A parole officer recognized Holley as a parolee and asked to search Holley’s residence; Holley consented.
- Police searched Holley’s room and recovered 16.529 grams of crack cocaine from a locked safe under his bed; Holley was arrested and charged with possession with intent to sell by a non–drug‑dependent person under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a‑278(b).
- At trial the court gave written jury instructions and read them aloud; in the written instructions reasonable doubt was described using the phrase "you would heed," but the court orally said "you will heed." Defense did not object to that verbal discrepancy.
- Holley moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrantless parole search violated constitutional protections because it did not comply with Department of Correction administrative directives; the trial court denied suppression on two independent grounds: (1) Holley had signed parole conditions consenting in writing to searches, and (2) he gave verbal consent immediately before the search.
- The jury convicted Holley of possession with intent to sell; the court granted acquittal on the subsequent‑offender count. On appeal Holley challenged (A) parts of the reasonable‑doubt instruction (including the use of the phrase "upon it" and the oral use of "will" versus written "would"), and (B) denial of his motion to suppress on constitutional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of the phrase "…hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance" diluted the reasonable‑doubt standard | State: precedent approves that formulation; instruction constitutional | Holley: phrase ("upon it") renders instruction nonsensical and dilutes burden | Court: Rejected Holley; bound by Supreme Court precedent upholding that language |
| Whether oral use of "you will heed" (vs. written "you would heed") misled jury and diluted burden | State: written instructions were correct and provided to jurors; no objection; no confusion | Holley: oral wording substituted "will" for subjunctive "would," diluting burden | Court: Unpreserved claim reviewed under Golding; no reasonable possibility jurors were misled given correct written instructions and no objection; claim fails |
| Whether denial of suppression should be reversed because parole‑search directives were not followed | State: independent factual finding—Holley consented orally—supports denial; thus challenge is moot | Holley: parole directives noncompliance renders search unconstitutional despite parole agreement | Court: Appeal as to administrative‑directive argument is moot because Holley did not challenge the trial court’s independent finding of verbal consent, which would alone sustain denial of suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Winfrey, 302 Conn. 195 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (upholding language describing reasonable doubt as that which "would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance")
- State v. Mark R., 300 Conn. 590 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (rejecting challenges to similar reasonable‑doubt language)
- State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (same)
- State v. Jackson, 283 Conn. 111 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (explaining necessity of clear reasonable‑doubt charge and near‑certitude concept)
- State v. Lester, 324 Conn. 519 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (appeal moot where appellant failed to challenge all independent bases for trial court’s ruling)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (searches conducted pursuant to consent are valid)