State v. Jackson, 173 A.3d 974

On June 4, 2007 Julian Ellis was shot and killed; Troy Jackson was tried by jury and convicted of murder and related firearm offenses and sentenced to a total effective term of 60 years.
Two witnesses, Sterling Cole and Nicholas Newton, were present at the scene and later identified Jackson; both were incarcerated on unrelated matters when interviewed/testified and Newton had a plea agreement tied to his testimony.
At trial the court admitted prior inconsistent statements (Whelan) and gave general credibility instructions; it did not give a special accomplice credibility instruction sua sponte.
Jackson argued on appeal that the court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury specifically about accomplice credibility. This court originally deemed the claim waived under Kitchens; the Connecticut Supreme Court remanded for consideration of plain error in light of McClain.
On remand the Appellate Court held Jackson did not satisfy the two-prong plain error test: (1) no indisputable instructional error (Cole and Newton were not charged or confessing accomplices and defense never argued they were accomplices), and (2) no manifest injustice because jury knew of witnesses’ motives, received general credibility instructions, and defense highlighted those motives in closing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by failing sua sponte to give an accomplice credibility instruction for Cole and Newton	Court should instruct jury to scrutinize testimony of witnesses present at scene because their conduct could show mutuality of intent or aiding an offense	Jackson: failure to give the instruction was plain error because evidence supported inference Cole and Newton were accomplices (behavior on video, presence with parties)	No. Not plain error — neither witness was charged or confessed as accomplice, no evidence of planning, and defense never contended they were accomplices; giving the instruction could have conflicted with defendant’s strategy.
Whether omission of the accomplice instruction constituted plain error requiring reversal	Same — omission was obvious and harmful, warranting reversal under the two-prong plain error doctrine	Even if omission were an error, it did not cause manifest injustice because jury was aware of witnesses’ incentives, received general credibility instructions, and defense emphasized motives in closing	No. Even assuming first-prong error, second prong fails: no manifest injustice; jury instructed on credibility and was informed of motives and plea deal.

State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (defendant may waive instructional objections when counsel reviews and accepts proposed instructions)
State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (Conn. 2017) (Kitchens waiver does not bar plain error review)
State v. Jamison, 320 Conn. 589 (Conn. 2016) (failure to give accomplice credibility instruction ordinarily does not constitute plain error under manifest injustice prong)
State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400 (Conn. 2016) (plain error is an extraordinary, two-pronged doctrine reserved for errors that are clear and cause manifest injustice)
State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (Conn. 1986) (admissibility of prior inconsistent out-of-court statements when declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination)