171 Conn. App. 311
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Victim Dallas Boomer was fatally shot while seated in a parked rental car in New Haven; Tramont Murray was the lone eyewitness and later identified Kenneth Lee McCoy as the shooter. Murray initially gave an ambiguous statement to police (Dec. 6) and three weeks later (Dec. 27) identified McCoy. At trial Murray admitted he received immunity and $1,100 relocation assistance; he had multiple pending criminal matters.
- McCoy was tried by jury and convicted of murder; sentenced to 60 years’ incarceration. He appealed, alleging prosecutorial misconduct and that the trial court erred in denying his postverdict motion for a new trial for lack of jurisdiction.
- Trial court repeatedly ruled that prior consistent statements by Murray post-dating his initial inconsistent statement were inadmissible; the prosecutor nevertheless attempted on several occasions to elicit or reference those statements and made an arguably speculative remark in closing about an out-of-evidence conversation.
- Defense argued the prosecutor improperly solicited inadmissible prior consistent statements, invited juror speculation, and impermissibly argued that acquittal would require finding several witnesses lied; defense also filed a motion for a new trial after conviction asserting prosecutorial impropriety and later a Brady claim concerning undisclosed consideration to Murray.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial as beyond its jurisdiction because it had lost jurisdiction after sentencing. McCoy appealed; the appellate court addressed both the misconduct claims and the jurisdictional question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McCoy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial elicitation of prior consistent statements | Questions were not outcome-determinative; any misunderstanding of the court's ruling was harmless | Prosecutor repeatedly sought to introduce hearsay statements the court had precluded | Some questioning was improper, but did not deprive McCoy of a fair trial |
| Prosecutor’s speculative closing about out-of-evidence conversation | Argument invited permissible inferences from evidence | Argument invited jury speculation about statements not in evidence | Statement was improper; trial court promptly instructed jury to disregard; harmless |
| Prosecutor’s closing that acquittal would require finding witnesses lied (Singh claim) | Argument linked alleged secret deal to witness credibility, not to forcing acquittal by finding all state witnesses liars | Argument violated Singh by presenting false binary choice to jury | Not a Singh violation; argument was permissible as framed and not improper |
| Trial court jurisdiction to hear motion for new trial after sentencing | Court lacked jurisdiction after sentence began; motion for new trial must be brought before sentencing or by petition | Myers suggested court could retain jurisdiction post-sentencing (by implication) | Trial court correctly held it lacked jurisdiction; Myers did not overturn the rule that jurisdiction terminates upon execution of sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414 (Conn. 2006) (two-step prosecutorial impropriety review and precedential discussion of improper questioning after objections)
- State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (Conn. 2001) (closing argument that forces jury to choose between acquittal and finding witnesses lied is improper)
- State v. Luzietti, 230 Conn. 427 (Conn. 1994) (trial court loses jurisdiction once sentence has been executed)
- State v. Myers, 242 Conn. 125 (Conn. 1997) (juror bias claims may be raised in a motion for new trial, but did not decide jurisdictional rule post-sentencing)
- State v. Wilson, 199 Conn. 417 (Conn. 1986) (criminal judgment may be modified in matters of substance within a limited time period)
- Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 (Conn. 2001) (sentencing court’s jurisdiction terminates once sentence begins)
- State v. Ortiz, 280 Conn. 686 (Conn. 2006) (prosecutor’s repeated questioning after an objection can be characterized as improperly aggressive)
- State v. Bruno, 132 Conn. App. 172 (Conn. App. 2011) (motion for new trial under Practice Book must be filed while case is pending; post-sentencing remedy is petition under statutory procedure)