152 Conn.App. 753
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Kenneth Jamison appealed after a 1996 jury trial conviction for possession of narcotics, manufacturing a bomb, and possession of an explosive; he was previously acquitted of firearm possession and the narcotics-with-intent-to-sell charges were narrowed to possession of narcotics after a pre-trial handwriting exemplar demand.
- Police executed a warrant on Maria Caban’s Bridgeport apartment; found an M-1000 explosive device with pennies glued to its exterior, cocaine, a scale, a sealer, a notebook, a gun, and a safe with signed documents.
- Caban testified she and Jamison glued pennies onto the M-1000, and she had purchased the device; the state’s explosives expert described the pennies as creating an improvised antipersonnel device.
- Jamison was ordered to provide a handwriting exemplar for comparison with the notebook; the notebook and other items tied him to the explosive device found in Caban’s apartment.
- The jury convicted Jamison of possession of narcotics, manufacturing a bomb, and possession of an explosive; the trial court sentenced him to 37 years with 32 to run, suspended on probation. The court later granted a judgment of acquittal on narcotics-with-intent-to-sell and the state amended the information accordingly.
- On appeal, Jamison challenged sufficiency of evidence for manufacturing a bomb, requested an accomplice credibility instruction, claimed double jeopardy, argued improper possession instructions, and asserted a Connecticut constitutional privilege violation regarding the handwriting exemplar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports manufacturing a bomb conviction | Jamison argues gluing pennies to a device does not constitute fabrication | State contends Pennies-on-explosive shows fabrication under § 53-80a | Evidence supports fabrication under § 53-80a; conviction stands |
| Whether trial court failed to give an accomplice credibility instruction | State’s witness was an accomplice; instruction required | Jamison claims lack of instruction prejudiced him | Plain error; failure to give the mandatory instruction requires reversal for manufacturing a bomb and explosive conviction |
| Whether dual convictions violated double jeopardy | Two offenses based on same act/transaction | No double jeopardy since offenses have distinct elements | No double jeopardy for possession of explosive vs. manufacturing a bomb; second claim fails |
| Whether jury instruction adequately conveyed possession elements | Knowledge of presence and knowledge of character conflated | Court correctly instructed on possession and inferencing knowledge | Instructions were adequate; no reversible error under Golding |
| Whether handwriting exemplar compelled under Connecticut constitution | CT constitution provides broader protections | CT provision may protect non-testimonial evidence | No constitutional violation under Golding; handwriting exemplar is non-testimonial and permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Webster, 308 Conn. 43 (2013) (statutory interpretation framework; plain meaning controls when unambiguous)
- State v. Moore, 293 Conn. 781 (2009) (accomplice instruction mandatory when warranted; plain error standard)
- State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64 (2013) (plain error standard and four-factor test for credibility instruction impact)
- State v. Bernacki, 307 Conn. 1 (2012) (Blockburger approach to same offense and double jeopardy in single trial)
- State v. Miller, 150 Conn. App. 667 (2014) (distinguishes plain error in accomplice instruction where safeguards exist)
- State v. Evans, 44 Conn. App. 307 (1997) (Golding-type review for unpreserved claims of constitutional magnitude)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (procedure for reviewing unpreserved constitutional errors)