State v. LaFountain
16 A.3d 761
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- On Nov. 30, 2006, Krista LaFountain met Smykla, Martin and Bodamer at a Bristol gas station and, after socializing, joined them to obtain cocaine.
- At Smykla’s apartment they discussed stealing cocaine from Brandy Davis in Plymouth; Bodamer had an AK-47.
- The group drove to Davis’ apartment; Bodamer concealed his identity and weapons; LaFountain accompanied them to the Davis door.
- Bodamer broke in, fired two shots through a kitchen window; one killed Daniel Davis, Sr., and the other injured Todd Hall.
- LaFountain helped carry out the plan, aided Bodamer in the attempted robbery, and fled the scene with him.
- LaFountain was arrested Dec. 1, 2006, charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, attempted robbery, felony murder, and first-degree assault; a jury found her guilty on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault under Pinkerton | State argues Bodamer committed assault; Pinkerton liability applies | LaFountain cannot be vicariously liable for Bodamer’s assault | Sufficient evidence supports Pinkerton liability for assault |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder | Death occurred during attempt to commit robbery; within the felony murder theory | No direct link that shooting advanced the underlying felony | Evidence supports felony murder under the underlying felony and in furtherance |
| Prosecutorial impropriety for failure to introduce statements | Statements could aid truth-finding; duty to disclose | Statements were not required to be entered; no impropriety | No prosecutorial impropriety from failure to introduce statements |
| Prosecutorial impropriety in closing arguments | Two remarks improperly vouched for witnesses and suggested punishment | Remarks within permissible advocacy; not prejudicial | No reversible prosecutorial impropriety from closing remarks |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (conspirator liable for co-conspirator’s offenses within scope and reasonably foreseeable)
- State v. Coltherst, 263 Conn. 478 (2003) (Pinkerton liability within conspiracy law)
- State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 (2000) (in furtherance requires logical nexus between underlying felony and homicide)
- State v. Young, 191 Conn. 636 (1983) (nexus beyond mere causation; death within plan scope)
- State v. Gayle, 64 Conn.App. 596 (2001) (course of and in furtherance of attempted robbery; cannot compartmentalize events)
- State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (2006) (witness credibility and motive in closing arguments)
- State v. Tomas D., 296 Conn. 476 (2010) (Guilfoyle rule disclosures; strategic defense choices)
- State v. Monahan, 125 Conn.App. 113 (2010) (sufficiency review for circumstantial evidence)