State v. Maner, 147 Conn. App. 761

On Oct. 26, 2008, defendant Tamarius Maner was present in victim James Caffrey’s apartment; later that night two armed men entered, the victim was shot and died, and Samantha Bright (girlfriend) and Emilia Caffrey (mother) witnessed events.
Police recovered a handgun from co-defendant Calvin Bennett’s apartment; forensic testing showed Bennett’s DNA on that gun and that it was not the weapon that fired the fatal shots in the victim’s apartment.
Eyewitnesses (Bright and Caffrey) identified Maner as one of the intruders; cell‑tower records and a jailhouse informant’s testimony corroborated Maner’s presence and admissions.
Maner was tried by jury and convicted of felony murder, home invasion, first‑degree burglary, and attempt to commit first‑degree assault; sentenced to 70 years.
On appeal Maner challenged: (1) admission of Bennett’s firearm and related testimony, (2) admission of Bessie Pettway’s testimony and Whelan statement concerning the firearm/drugs, and (3) several prosecutor closing‑argument remarks as improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Maner)	Held
Admissibility of gun found in Bennett’s apt	Gun corroborates eyewitness testimony that intruders were armed and shows both entrants had guns	Gun had only tenuous nexus to Maner (no DNA, not the murder weapon); admission was unduly prejudicial	Court: admission was improper (no material nexus) but error was harmless given strong corroborating evidence
Admission of Pettway’s testimony and Whelan statement	Statement and testimony provided corroborative facts about Bennett and the firearm; admissible for substantive use	Testimony/statement was cumulative, unrelated to Maner, and violated Confrontation Clause	Court: even if error or Confrontation problem, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Prosecutorial vouching for eyewitnesses (Bright/Caffrey)	Argument based on evidence and corroboration; proper to argue credibility tied to record	Prosecutor impermissibly vouched for witnesses	Court: statements were tied to evidence and reasonable inference; not improper
Other challenged prosecutor remarks (denigrating defense, speculating about disposal of gun, emotional appeals)	Remarks were fair rebuttal, reasonable inferences, appeals to common sense, or permissible rhetorical flourish	Remarks unfairly disparaged defense, speculated beyond evidence, and appealed to jury emotion	Court: remarks were within permissible latitude—not improper and did not deny fair trial

State v. Sawyer, 279 Conn. 331 (Conn. 2006) (articulates harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors: verdict not substantially swayed and "fair assurance" test)
State v. Mozell, 36 Conn. App. 672 (Conn. App. 1995) (admission of firearm with no connection to defendant or charged offense is an abuse of discretion)
State v. Coleman, 35 Conn. App. 279 (Conn. App. 1994) (evidence of weapons must be connected to charged crimes or is improperly prejudicial)
State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (Conn. 1986) (permits admission of prior out‑of‑court statements for substantive purposes under specified circumstances)
State v. Wilson, 308 Conn. 412 (Conn. 2013) (discusses two‑step prosecutorial‑impropriety analysis and harmlessness for Confrontation Clause errors)
State v. Girolamo, 197 Conn. 201 (Conn. 1985) (admission of irrelevant firearms can be harmful because weapons tend to inflame jury and suggest criminal propensity)
State v. Payne, 260 Conn. 446 (Conn. 2002) (examples of prosecutorial emotional appeals that can be improper)