State v. Jones
2012 WL 1838380
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Marquis Jones armed with a gun approached the victim from behind during a robbery at a Bridgeport area restaurant and shot Horace Cheatham after Browning led them to a backyard sale.
- Browning testified he arranged the marijuana sale and that Jones had stated the victim and Moore had money and were to be robbed.
- Browning testified that Jones approached from the area between two houses near Central Avenue and said, “you know what time it is, run that shit.”
- Footprints in the snow at the crime scene included Converse star-pattern prints and boots; Detective Biehn identified Converse prints and Browning as wearing Converse on the night.
- States exhibits six and eight depicted the crime scene and footprints; the defense argued about the absence of Jones’s footprints.
- Jones was convicted of felony murder; the court sentenced him to 40 years, to run consecutively to another sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial impropriety during closing argument violated due process | Jones argues improper remarks deprived fair trial | State argues remarks were fair and based on evidence | No due process violation; footprint argument not improper |
| Court should grant a new trial under supervisory authority | Impropriety warrants extraordinary relief to deter future conduct | No egregious impropriety; no need for new trial | Supervisory relief denied; no new trial granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (guides factors for prosecutorial impropriety review)
- State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (Conn. 2012) (propriety analysis requires due process consideration)
- State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633 (Conn. 2006) (prosecutorial misconduct framing; risk of unsworn testimony)
- State v. Camacho, 282 Conn. 328 (Conn. 2007) (exhibits admitted as full exhibits are for all purposes)
- State v. David O., 104 Conn.App. 722 (Conn. App. 2007) (allowed reasonable inferences from evidence in closing)
- State v. Therrien, 117 Conn.App. 256 (Conn. App. 2009) (distinguishes improper closing where unrelated facts invoked)