State v. Jamison, 320 Conn. 589

Background

In 1995 police executed a warrant at Maria Caban’s Bridgeport apartment and found an M-1000 explosive (with pennies attached), a small amount of cocaine, a scale, a heat sealer, a loaded firearm, and a notebook with drug-trafficking references; Caban later produced letters she said were written by Kenneth Jamison.
Jamison was arrested, ordered to provide a handwriting exemplar, and tried in 1996; the jury convicted him of illegal possession of a narcotic (reduced), manufacturing a bomb, and illegal possession of an explosive, but acquitted him of firearm possession.
Caban testified she bought the M-1000 and helped Jamison attach pennies; defense argued she implicated Jamison to avoid prosecution.
The trial court did not give a special accomplice-accreditation instruction sua sponte; defense did not request it. The jury received a general credibility instruction and was informed of Caban’s potential motive.
On appeal the Appellate Court reversed Jamison’s convictions for manufacturing a bomb and illegal possession of an explosive under the plain error doctrine for failure to give the accomplice credibility instruction; the State sought certification.
The Supreme Court granted certification, considered (1) whether the omission was plain error and (2) Jamison’s alternative claim that compelling a handwriting exemplar violated the Connecticut constitution.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Jamison's Argument	Held
Whether trial court’s failure to give an accomplice credibility instruction sua sponte was plain error	Appellate Court misapplied plain error standard; omission not so harmful to require reversal where jury got general credibility instruction and knew of witness motive	Omission was patent and prejudicial because Caban was an accomplice whose testimony linked Jamison to explosives	Not plain error: omission was obvious but not so gravely harmful; general credibility instruction plus defense impeachment and awareness of Caban’s motive made reversal unnecessary
Whether Ruth factors (corroboration, consistency, motive shown, instructions) required reversal under plain error	Appellate Court overstated weight of Ruth factors and failed to show that omission likely caused conviction	Error was established under Ruth factors and harmed fairness of trial	Two of four Ruth factors favored Jamison but under heightened plain error standard the record did not show manifest injustice or likelihood jury was misled
Whether compelling a handwriting exemplar violated state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination	State: exemplar is non-testimonial physical evidence and any Connecticut protection would be harmless here	Jamison: Connecticut constitution affords greater protection than Fifth Amendment; exemplar compelled him to produce self-incriminating evidence	Even assuming state constitution afforded broader protection, use of exemplar was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as it did not affect convictions for bomb/explosive and jury acquitted on firearm charge
Whether evidence from handwriting exemplar prejudiced bomb/explosive convictions	State: exemplar evidence tied only weakly to firearm charge and was cumulative as expert matched letter to notebook without exemplar; jury instructions limited its use	Jamison: exemplar reinforced connection between him and notebook/apartment and prejudiced jury	Held harmless: exemplar at most cumulative and limiting instruction was presumed followed; no effect on bomb/explosive verdicts

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ruth, 181 Conn. 187 (Conn.) (sets four-factor test for accomplice credibility instruction)
State v. Moore, 293 Conn. 781 (Conn.) (discusses accomplice instruction duty and application of Ruth factors)
State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (Conn.) (requires special scrutiny instruction for informants expecting benefit)
State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 (Conn.) (sua sponte omission of special informant instruction not plain error when general credibility instruction and motive were presented)
State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 (Conn.) (applies Ebron to reject plain error where jury knew informant’s motive and received general instruction)
State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64 (Conn.) (explains plain error two-prong test)
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S.) (handwriting exemplars are physical, non-testimonial evidence)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S.) (Miranda warning referenced in factual background)