170 Conn. App. 254
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Michael Mark was convicted after jury trial of murder, felony murder, two counts of first‑degree robbery (§ 53a‑134(a)(1) and (a)(3)), and conspiracy; this appeal challenges evidentiary exclusions and alleged double jeopardy.
- The victim, Arnaldo Gonzalez, was bludgeoned to death with a rock on November 2, 2010; state’s case linked Mark to the murder and robbery.
- Defense sought to admit evidence of four other Waterbury robberies occurring around the same time and place to support a third‑party culpability defense; proffered similarities included timing, proximity, assaults, a cigarette brand match, and prior police investigation linking incidents.
- Trial court granted the state’s motion in limine and excluded maps, redacted police reports, portions of an autopsy investigator’s notes, and cross‑examination on the other incidents for lack of a direct connection to the charged crime.
- Defendant also challenged convictions for both § 53a‑134(a)(1) (causing serious physical injury) and § 53a‑134(a)(3) (use of a dangerous instrument) as violative of double jeopardy, arguing (based on blunt force fatality) that (a)(1) is a lesser‑included of (a)(3).
- The appellate court affirmed: (1) exclusion of the other‑robberies evidence was not an abuse of discretion because the defense failed to show a direct connection; (2) double jeopardy did not bar convictions on both robbery counts under Blockburger because each offense requires proof of an element the other does not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of evidence of four other robberies (third‑party culpability) | State: evidence irrelevant, prejudicial, no direct link to charged robbery | Mark: similarities (time, place, assault pattern, cigarette brand, prior police nexus) make evidence relevant to show alternative perpetrators | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to offer evidence directly connecting other robberies to charged offense; would invite speculation |
| Cross‑examination/ autopsy notes referencing other robberies | State: hearsay/irrelevant and confusing | Mark: testimony undermines state's timeline and supports third‑party theory | Affirmed — relevancy and hearsay grounds justified exclusion without a direct connecting link |
| Admission of maps and police reports showing other incidents | State: maps/reports lack probative value absent connection | Mark: geographic proximity and cluster pattern probative of alternate perpetrators | Affirmed — court properly required more than bare suspicion or motive; maps irrelevant without direct linkage |
| Double jeopardy challenge to convictions under § 53a‑134(a)(1) and (a)(3) | State: offenses distinct; possible to commit (a)(3) without causing serious physical injury and vice versa | Mark: fatal blunt force trauma shows serious injury necessarily required use of dangerous instrument, making (a)(1) lesser‑included of (a)(3) | Affirmed — Blockburger applied: each statute requires proof of an element the other does not; no clear legislative intent to bar multiple punishments |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 280 Conn. 285 (recognizes defendant's right to present third‑party culpability but requires direct connecting evidence)
- State v. Baltas, 311 Conn. 786 (evidence that raises only bare suspicion of third‑party guilt is inadmissible)
- State v. Ferguson, 260 Conn. 339 (similarity/appearance of third party insufficient without other connecting evidence)
- State v. Underwood, 142 Conn. App. 666 (Blockburger analysis and recognition that statute must show contrary legislative intent to bar multiple punishments)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test for whether two statutory offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)