State v. McKethan, 184 Conn. App. 187

Defendant Dequan McKethan was charged in two separate informations: (1) murder for shooting Darius Bishop to death, and (2) motor-vehicle stop–related counts including carrying a pistol without a permit and possession of narcotics.
Ballistics linked a .22 handgun found in defendant’s car to the shell casing at the murder scene; defendant’s DNA was on the gun’s trigger and magazine; Super‑X .22 ammunition was also found.
After arrest for the vehicle stop offenses, the state filed a murder information; the state later moved to join the two informations for a single trial; defendant objected claiming substantial prejudice from joinder.
Trial court found the evidence was not cross‑admissible but, applying State v. Boscarino factors, granted joinder, concluding the risk of prejudice was not substantial and the trial would not be overly complex.
Jury convicted defendant of murder, carrying a pistol without a permit, and possession of narcotics; defendant appealed claiming joinder was improper because the murder was significantly more brutal and shocking and jury instructions did not cure prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joinder of the murder information with the firearm/drug information was an abuse of discretion because the murder was significantly more brutal and shocking and would unfairly prejudice the defendant	State: joinder permissible; evidence from the vehicle stop would be admissible in the murder trial and Boscarino factors do not show substantial prejudice	McKethan: murder’s brutality would cause the jury to cumulate evidence and convict on the lesser charges; joinder therefore caused substantial prejudice	Court: no abuse of discretion; although murder was more brutal (Boscarino factor 2 weighs against joinder), explicit jury instructions to consider each count separately cured any risk of substantial prejudice
Preservation: Whether defendant preserved the specific appellate claim that joinder prejudiced the non‑murder counts because of the murder’s brutality	State: claim not preserved because lower‑court argument focused only on prejudice to the murder count	McKethan: objection and hearing sufficiently raised prejudice concerns and trial court addressed the violent nature of murder	Court: claim preserved; trial court explicitly considered the violent nature of murder when ruling on joinder

State v. Boscarino, 529 A.2d 1260 (Conn. 1987) (sets Boscarino factors to assess prejudice from joinder)
State v. Payne, 34 A.3d 370 (Conn. 2012) (discusses cross‑admissibility and comparison of relative violence between joined offenses)
State v. LaFleur, 51 A.3d 1048 (Conn. 2012) (reviews Boscarino factors and curative effect of jury instructions)
State v. Wilson, 64 A.3d 846 (Conn. App. 2013) (upholds joinder where court repeatedly cautioned jury to consider each charge separately)
State v. Davis, 942 A.2d 373 (Conn. 2008) (jury instructions can cure risk of prejudice from joinder)
State v. Rivera, 798 A.2d 958 (Conn. 2002) (appellate review of trial court’s joinder decision where instructions were proper)