163 Conn.App. 618
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Jose Jusino had pleaded guilty in 2006 to intentional murder and was serving a 30‑year sentence when, in 2009, he killed his cellmate and confessed.
- The 2009 killing produced graphic, deliberate conduct (binding, strangulation, postmortem carving of defendant’s nickname) and multiple oral/written admissions to correction officers and police.
- Prosecutor charged Jusino with murder and with capital felony under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‑54b(3) (previous conviction for intentional murder as an element); state sought death penalty. Trial proceeded in three phases: guilt of the current murder, capital‑felony element (prior murder conviction), and penalty. Jury found capital felony; later declined aggravator for death penalty; defendant sentenced to life without release.
- Before the capital‑felony phase, Jusino sought to introduce evidence at the guilt phase to collaterally attack his 2006 guilty plea (arguing lack of specific intent and ineffective assistance of counsel) and moved for a stay pending habeas relief; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion as the 2006 plea was constitutionally valid on its face.
- Jusino also requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance; the court refused, concluding the evidence (annoyance over boxer shorts, complaints) was insufficient as a matter of law.
- On appeal Jusino argued (1) exclusion of evidence to collaterally attack the prior conviction violated his due process/right to present a defense, and (2) the court erred in not instructing on extreme emotional disturbance. The Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jusino) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant could present evidence at guilt phase to collaterally attack his 2006 murder conviction (element of capital felony) | Prior conviction was a valid conviction on its face and, under Custis and related authority, collateral attacks at sentencing/element stage are limited; trial court properly adjudicated facial validity in an evidentiary hearing and excluded relitigation before the jury | Jusino sought to relitigate factual issues of his 2006 plea (lack of specific intent; ineffective assistance of counsel) before the jury so the jury would not treat the 2006 plea as an established element of capital felony | Court held exclusion proper: defendant failed to show constitutional invalidity of prior conviction; juries do not decide collateral‑attack/effective‑assistance claims and Custis limits collateral attack to Gideon‑type claims apparent on face of judgment; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing to instruct jury on affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance | Evidence did not support that defendant acted under extreme emotional disturbance or lost self‑control; defendant’s conduct was calculated and planned | Jusino argued his statements and some witness impressions could permit a rational juror to find extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance | Court held no error: evidence showed planning, calm demeanor, postcrime comments, and consciousness of guilt; facts amounted to annoyance, not overwhelming disturbance, so no reasonable juror could find the defense by preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1967) (prior conviction obtained in violation of constitutional rights cannot be used to enhance punishment)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1994) (limiting collateral attack at sentencing on prior convictions to Gideon counsel‑of‑right violations apparent on the face of the record)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Jones, 234 Conn. 324 (Conn. 1995) (discussion of capital felony statute and role of prior conviction as an element for enhanced punishment)
- State v. Person, 236 Conn. 342 (Conn. 1996) (elements and burden for affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance)
- State v. Wright, 198 Conn. 273 (Conn. 1986) (presumption favoring regularity of convictions; collateral attacks disfavored)
- State v. Domian, 235 Conn. 679 (Conn. 1996) (guilty plea constitutes a conviction)