199 Conn.App. 56
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- On April 11, 2015, Treizy Lopez and Leighton Vanderberg entered Sapiao’s Grocery in Bridgeport; Vanderberg shot and fatally wounded Jose Salgado during the incident. Lopez was identified as the other participant.
- Surveillance video showed the men entering, fleeing, and leaving in a light green Ford Focus; an eyewitness provided a descriptive ID.
- A firearm recovered later in New Haven was forensically matched to the bullets that killed Jose, and DNA from Lopez was found on the gun.
- Lopez admitted in a recorded police interview and at trial that he and Vanderberg intended to commit robberies, described the gun he used, and acknowledged being present in the store.
- The state sought to introduce evidence of a separate, same-day Smokin’ Wings robbery in New Haven (uncharged misconduct) because the same gun was used there; Lopez moved to exclude that evidence as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
- The trial court admitted the Smokin’ Wings evidence solely for identification with limiting instructions; the jury convicted Lopez of attempt to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, acquitted him of felony murder, and Lopez appealed claiming improper admission of uncharged misconduct evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lopez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Smokin’ Wings evidence as uncharged misconduct under identity exception | Evidence was relevant to identity because same firearm and close temporal/proximity facts linked Lopez to both incidents | Evidence was irrelevant to the charged Bridgeport offense and unduly prejudicial; would impermissibly show propensity | Court did not decide admissibility; proceeded to harmless-error analysis and affirmed because other evidence overwhelmingly proved identity |
| Whether probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect | Probative value high (same gun, DNA, temporal proximity); limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | Prejudice outweighed probative value and tainted jury by suggesting criminal propensity | Court assumed arguendo potential error but held any error harmless due to strong independent identification evidence |
| Whether admission (if error) was harmful nonconstitutional error | State: any error harmless given DNA, surveillance, eyewitness ID, and Lopez’s admissions | Lopez: split verdict and brief deadlock on felony murder show the case was close so the uncharged misconduct could have influenced verdict | Court applied harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional errors and found fair assurance error did not substantially affect verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Osimanti, 299 Conn. 1, 6 A.3d 790 (2010) (harmlessness review can obviate abuse-of-discretion analysis for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Angel T., 292 Conn. 262, 973 A.2d 1207 (2009) (uncharged misconduct may be harmful where the state’s case is weak and credibility is in dispute)
- State v. Paul B., 315 Conn. 19, 105 A.3d 130 (2014) (courts presume juries follow limiting instructions absent contrary evidence)
- State v. LeBlanc, 148 Conn. App. 503, 84 A.3d 1242 (2014) (standard for harmless review of nonconstitutional evidentiary error)
- State v. Sawyer, 279 Conn. 331, 904 A.2d 101 (2006) (uncharged-misconduct evidence can be prejudicial when physical evidence is lacking and case is credibility-driven)