State v. McClain
105 A.3d 924
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- On July 17, 2010, defendant Tajah McClain was tried for murder with a firearm, first‑degree assault with a firearm, and carrying a pistol without a permit after shooting victim Eldwin Barrios; jury convicted and sentenced to a total effective 65 years.
- Eyewitness Eduardo Martorony, who had been placed in the witness protection program and testified for the state, identified the defendant and described the shooting.
- Defense extensively cross‑examined Martorony about bias: pending charges, hope charges would be dropped, alcohol use that night, and payments/benefits he received while in the witness protection program.
- Trial court limited cross‑examination on two narrow topics: the form of payments and the specific lodging (hotel vs. apartment) provided by the witness protection program, citing safety and program integrity.
- Defense argued on appeal that limitation violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation right; defendant also sought reversal for plain error because the court refused to give a consciousness‑of‑guilt jury instruction (defense never objected at trial and affirmatively acquiesced).
- Appellate court affirmed: cross‑examination was constitutionally adequate and trial court did not abuse its discretion; defendant waived plain error review of omitted consciousness‑of‑guilt instruction by affirmatively acquiescing at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation on cross‑examination of witness in witness protection program | State: court can limit inquiry that would jeopardize safety/program integrity while allowing meaningful inquiry into bias/benefits | McClain: exclusion of where he lived and how payments were made deprived jury of facts to assess Martorony’s credibility (Confrontation Clause violation) | Court held: cross‑examination was sufficient; excluding form of payment and lodging was a reasonable discretion call protecting program integrity and not essential to credibility assessment |
| Failure to give consciousness‑of‑guilt instruction (plain error) | State: defense acquiesced in instructions at trial; evidence relied on by state was presented and defense did not object, so claim is waived | McClain: omission was plain error warranting reversal despite lack of timely request/objection | Court held: defendant waived right to appellate review by affirmatively agreeing at trial; plain error doctrine does not revive a valid waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reeves, 57 Conn. App. 337 (trial judge has discretion to limit cross‑examination but defendant must be allowed sufficient cross‑examination under the Sixth Amendment)
- State v. Santiago, 224 Conn. 325 (cross‑examination to show motive, bias, interest is a matter of right; exclusions evaluated for impact on credibility assessment)
- State v. Davis, 298 Conn. 1 (trial court has wide discretion on relevance and scope of cross‑examination; confrontation clause guarantees effective, not unlimited, cross‑examination)
- State v. Rosado, 147 Conn. App. 688 (party who acquiesces to trial court procedure or instruction waives appellate review; valid waiver precludes plain error relief)