159 Conn.App. 376
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Gilberto O. Marrero-Alejandro was convicted by a jury of murder for fatally shooting Jose Cruz‑Diaz after being hired (by a drug associate) to kill the victim; defendant fled the state and was later located in Massachusetts.
- An eyewitness recovered a sweatshirt at the scene; swabbed material from the sweatshirt pocket produced DNA that could not exclude the defendant; a buccal swab taken in Massachusetts produced a matching DNA profile.
- Bristol police questioned the defendant at a Massachusetts district attorney’s office; he was Mirandized in Spanish, waived rights, spoke for ~1 hour 40 minutes, then invoked counsel and stopped the interview; he consented to a buccal swab before leaving.
- At trial the state introduced testimony from a cooperator (Bermudez) and from the victim’s girlfriend (Skinner) about the defendant’s connection to a drug organization, theft from a dealer, and threats—offered to show motive.
- Defendant raised four principal appellate claims: (1) prosecutorial impropriety in closing/rebuttal; (2) erroneous denial of suppression of his statements and the DNA swab; (3) improper admission of uncharged‑misconduct evidence; and (4) abuse of discretion in refusing to replace trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Marrero‑Alejandro) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial impropriety in closing/rebuttal | Prosecutor’s comments were fair argument, based on evidence and reasonable inferences (including DNA statistics and witness credibility). | Prosecutor misstated evidence, committed the prosecutor’s fallacy re: DNA, appealed to jurors’ emotions, denigrated defendant. | No impropriety found: comments were permissible argument, invited reasonable inferences, and did not cross into improper emotional appeals. |
| Suppression of oral statements (custody/voluntariness) | Statements were voluntary and not the product of custodial interrogation; Miranda warnings were given in Spanish and waived. | Statements were involuntary and made in custody; Miranda protections required suppression. | Court’s factual findings upheld: not in custody by objective test; waiver and voluntariness supported by record; suppression denial affirmed. |
| Suppression of DNA (taken after alleged invocation of counsel) | State: issue not preserved at trial and buccal swab is non‑testimonial physical evidence (Asherman). | DNA obtained after invocation of counsel should be suppressed. | Claim not preserved and not reviewable under Golding; in any event, buccal swab treated as non‑testimonial so Asherman controls; court declined Golding review. |
| Admission of uncharged misconduct (motive) | Evidence of drug membership, theft, and threats was probative of motive and relationship dynamics; limiting instruction was given. | Evidence irrelevant or overly prejudicial such that probative value was outweighed by prejudice. | Trial court did not abuse discretion: evidence admissible under §4‑5(b) exceptions (motive); probative value outweighed prejudice and limiting instruction mitigated misuse. |
| Request to replace counsel at trial | State: no exceptional circumstances; counsel was prepared, Spanish‑speaking, and communication existed. | Counsel was unprepared, uninterested, withheld materials—warranting substitution. | Denial affirmed: no exceptional circumstances shown; court found counsel prepared and willing; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grant, 154 Conn. App. 293 (Conn. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing prosecutorial impropriety and permissible scope of argument)
- State v. Chase, 154 Conn. App. 337 (Conn. App. 2014) (prosecutor allowed generous latitude in closing; limits on fair comment)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation triggers warnings)
- State v. Jackson, 304 Conn. 383 (Conn. 2012) (objective custody test and voluntariness totality‑of‑circumstances analysis)
- State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn. 1984) (physical/non‑testimonial evidence not protected by Fifth Amendment testimonial privilege)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)