State v. Jordan
33 A.3d 307
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Fight at Harry O's strip club in Stamford on July 19, 2008; Green shoots Payano, Garribido, and Castro; Green is the primary shooter, defendant assists; gun passed to Green and used in the shootings; defendant identified by multiple witnesses and via photo arrays; defendant was arrested and later wrote a coerced-sounding letter to his sister while in custody; information amended twice after trial commenced; jury convicted on three counts of first-degree assault as an accessory and court convicted on firearm possession.
- Witnesses testified Green spoke of help, and McDow, Rayanoso, and Payano identified Jordan in photo arrays and in court; defendant matched description including blue Yankees cap; defense identity theory contested by state’s evidence.
- Police used careful photographic arrays with safeguards; defendant’s alibi was not supported; the state sought amendments to charges to reflect firearm involvement; trial included both jury trial for assault and bench trial for firearm possession.
- Defendant argued there was no good cause for post-trial amendment and that prejudice occurred under Tanzella, Ramirez; the defense claimed prosecutorial misconduct in closing and rebuttal; court found amendments harmless and analyzed misconduct under Williams factors.
- Court noted that the trial started with voir dire for amendment purposes; trial court had discretion under Practice Book § 36-18; proper burden on state to show good cause and lack of prejudice; ultimately held amendment harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-trial amendment satisfied good cause and prejudiced defendant | State claims Tanzella allows conforming amendment after trial; good cause exists | Amendment lacked good cause and prejudiced substantive rights | Amendment failed good cause, but error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether prosecutorial remarks deprived defendant of fair trial | Prosecutor’s remarks were proper fair comment | Remarks were improper and prejudicial | Only one remark improper; overall trial not presumptively unfair; not a denial of due process |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tanzella, 226 Conn. 601 (1993) (good cause and likelihood of prejudice in information amendments)
- State v. Ramirez, 94 Conn.App. 812 (2006) (harmless error standard for amended information)
- State v. Wilson F., 77 Conn.App. 405 (2003) (burden to show prejudice from amendment; dual prong analysis)
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (prosecutorial misconduct analysis factors for fair trial)
- State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 (2007) (contextual review of prosecutorial comments)
- State v. Ancona, 270 Conn. 568 (2004) (eyewitness identification jury instructions guidance)