State v. Leniart
2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 259
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Victim A.P., age 15, disappeared after being picked up by defendant George Leniart on May 29, 1996; her body was never recovered.
- Eyewitness P.J. Allain testified he and A.P. were with defendant, witnessed sexual activity, saw defendant assault A.P., and later was told by defendant he killed and disposed of her.
- Defendant made multiple extrajudicial admissions to several people (Allain and three inmates) that he choked and disposed of A.P.’s body; defendant had a prior sexual assault conviction (K.S., age 13) months earlier.
- Defendant was charged with murder and three capital felony counts; convicted by a jury in 2010 and sentenced to life without release; appealed.
- Trial court excluded a videotape of Allain’s polygraph pretest interview and precluded expert testimony on jailhouse informant reliability; trial court admitted prior-misconduct evidence (K.S. and inmate statements).
- Appellate court upheld sufficiency of the evidence but reversed and ordered a new trial because excluding the pretest videotape was erroneous and harmful; it also held exclusion of the expert on informants was error, while admitting prior-misconduct evidence was proper.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Leniart's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / corpus delicti (is there independent proof A.P. is dead?) | Confessions and independent circumstantial evidence (disappearance, last seen, motive, prior choking) suffice; defendant waived corpus-delicti objection by not contesting confession admissibility | Confessions alone cannot prove corpus delicti; without extrinsic proof of death convictions improper | Court: Confessions admissible for sufficiency because defendant didn’t object; even if corpus-delicti reviewed, ample corroborating circumstantial evidence established death and trustworthiness of confessions |
| Exclusion of pretest videotape (polygraph pretest) | Tape relates to polygraph and thus falls within Porter’s per se bar on polygraph evidence; court may exclude references to polygraph | Tape is not polygraph "results" or willingness to test; it shows bias, motive and police pressure on Allain and is admissible impeachment/extrinsic evidence | Court: Tape is not barred by Porter; exclusion based on that misreading was error and prejudicial because tape bore on bias of crucial witness — reversible error; new trial required |
| Admission of prior sexual misconduct (K.S.) and inmate statements (Ching) | Prior sexual assault and inmate statements are admissible under sex‑misconduct propensity exception and as corroboration/consciousness of guilt | Such evidence is unduly prejudicial or extraneous; defendant objected | Court: Admission of K.S. testimony proper under §4-5(b) (DeJesus/DeJesus‑style propensity exception) — timely, similar, not too remote, probative; Ching’s testimony was admissible (not prior misconduct but relevant as consciousness of guilt) |
| Exclusion of expert on jailhouse informants (Natapoff) | Jury can assess credibility; Arroyo instruction suffices; expert would invade jury province and cover matters jurors know | Expert would provide specialized, empirical, contextual knowledge about informant incentives and unreliability beyond jurors’ ken; especially important where case depends on informants | Court: Excluding the expert was abuse of discretion — expert testimony on informant reliability may be admitted if qualified and testimony tailored/relevant; Arroyo instruction does not necessarily replace expert evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1997) (reaffirmed per se exclusion of polygraph results and willingness-to-test evidence)
- State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 (Conn. 2000) (adopted Opper trustworthiness approach to corroboration for confessions)
- State v. Harris, 215 Conn. 189 (Conn. 1990) (applied Opper corroboration principle requiring extrinsic evidence of confession trustworthiness)
- State v. Tillman, 152 Conn. 15 (Conn. 1964) (redefined corpus delicti as occurrence of the specific harm — e.g., death)
- State v. Doucette, 147 Conn. 95 (Conn. 1959) (historic articulation of corpus delicti/corroboration requirement)
- Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1954) (corroboration standard focusing on trustworthiness of confession)
- State v. Uretek, Inc., 207 Conn. 706 (Conn. 1988) (held unpreserved corpus-delicti objection may be forfeited; treated corroboration as evidentiary)
- State v. Oliveras, 210 Conn. 751 (Conn. 1989) (reviewed corpus-delicti/corroboration despite lack of contemporaneous objection)
- State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2009) (recognized unreliability of jailhouse informants and mandated special jury instruction)
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2012) (permitted expert testimony on factors affecting eyewitness reliability; limits on excluding such experts)