State v. Jordan
2012 WL 1673095
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- On April 1, 2008, a bank robbery attempt occurred at Naugatuck Savings Bank in Watertown; defendant was linked to the incident via a tan Infiniti registered to him and carried by Herman Cordero.
- Bethel, Bethel People's United Bank robbery (March 31, 2008) involved a masked robber with a bright orange lining and a black plastic bag; the defendant was arrested in connection with that incident.
- Police recovered clothing and a neoprene mask in Desantis' yard; items matched descriptions from the Bethel robbery and the Watertown pursuit, linking the defendant to both events.
- Jennifer Campbell testified that the defendant and Cordero were close; she later assisted police at the motel and in rides related to the Watertown case.
- Cordero testified that he drove the defendant to retrieve tools for his car and later assisted in the Watertown incident; his cooperation with the state was discussed prior to his testimony.
- The state charged the defendant with various offenses including attempt/conspiracy to commit robbery in the third degree, larceny, and tampering with physical evidence; the court ultimately tried the lesser-included offenses and a part B notice on release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of prior misconduct to prove intent | State argues Bethel evidence shows intent; probative value outweighs prejudice. | Jordan contends evidence is prejudicial and confounding, risks two trials, and waters down presumption of innocence. | Admission not an abuse; probative value outweighed prejudice with limiting instructions. |
| tampering with physical evidence sufficiency | Foreshaw supports conviction for discarding incriminating items during flight. | Discards did not constitute tampering under § 53a-155 since no official proceeding yet. | Conviction sustained; Foreshaw controlling; conduct fits tampering statute. |
| evidence sufficiency for conspiracy/attempt to robbery | Evidence shows defendant intended to commit robbery and took substantial steps. | Insufficient proof that he intended to commit a larceny with force threats beyond general intent. | Sufficient evidence; reasonable inferences support intent to rob and substantial step. |
| prosecutorial impropriety and witness coercion | Prosecutor properly disclosed cooperation; trial fairness unaffected. | Prosecutor failed to correct misleading testimony about agreements; violated due process. | Prosecutor's lapse did not deprive defendant of a fair trial; Williams factors weighed against reversal. |
| notice compliance for § 53a-40b enhancement under § 54-64e(b)(4) | Notice given via appearance bond referencing notices on page 2; sufficient to activate § 53a-40b. | Argument over whether notice is a legal predicate for enhancement. | Evidence supported notice; sentence enhancement valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dearborn, 82 Conn.App. 734, 846 A.2d 894 (2004) (standard for admissibility of uncharged misconduct)
- State v. Cutler, 293 Conn. 303, 977 A.2d 209 (2009) (limits on prior-act evidence; sufficiency with inferences)
- State v. Aaron L., 272 Conn. 798, 865 A.2d 1135 (2005) (prior act evidence as proof of a crime element)
- State v. Lopez, 14 Conn.App. 536, 541 A.2d 902 (1988) (limiting instruction reduces prejudice)
- State v. Anderson, 86 Conn.App. 854, 864 A.2d 35 (2005) (accomplice testimony; scrutiny required)
- State v. Glasper, 81 Conn.App. 367, 840 A.2d 48 (2004) (threats may be implied; intent inferred from conduct)
- State v. Moore, 82 Conn.App. 267, 843 A.2d 652 (2004) (inference from surrounding circumstances in intent cases)
- Jenkins v. Artuz, 294 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2002) (witness plea agreements and defense waiver considerations)
- State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700, 756 A.2d 799 (2000) (Napue/Giglio duties to correct false testimony)
- State v. Satchwell, 244 Conn. 547, 710 A.2d 1348 (1998) (Giglio/Napue framework for witness agreements)
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 529 A.2d 653 (1987) (six-factor test for prosecutorial impropriety impact)
- State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 917 A.2d 978 (2007) (prosecutorial impropriety and due process standard)