195 Conn.App. 154
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Victim Mohammed Kamal, a night‑shift taxi driver, was found stabbed to death in his cab; autopsy showed 127 stab wounds and the taxi’s glove compartment was open and empty.
- The defendant, Shota Mekoshvili, hailed the taxi, stabbed Kamal, removed money and the victim’s credit card, fled, and later gave conflicting accounts; blood evidence tied both men to the rear passenger area.
- Earlier that night Kamal briefly returned home and told his wife he had taken money to put in the taxi to pay the weekly dispatch fee and to send money to his family in Bangladesh.
- Kamal’s business partner, Jean Antoine, testified that Kamal habitually left his share of the weekly taxi fee in the glove compartment on Tuesday nights for Antoine to collect Wednesday morning.
- Mekoshvili claimed self‑defense at trial (alleging a sexual assault and a struggle); the state did not charge robbery but argued motive was financial gain.
- Trial court admitted the wife’s testimony under the state‑of‑mind hearsay exception and Antoine’s testimony under the habit exception; jury convicted Mekoshvili of murder and the court sentenced him to an effective 60 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mekoshvili) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s statement to wife under state‑of‑mind exception | Statement showed victim’s present intent to place money in taxi, supporting a robbery motive and rebutting self‑defense | Statement was irrelevant to who killed victim and was backward‑looking/self‑serving hearsay not covered by state‑of‑mind exception | Admitted: statement was forward‑looking about an immediate intent and relevant to motive; not self‑serving because no crime was foreseeable when made |
| Admissibility of partner’s testimony as habit evidence (money left in glove compartment) | Habit testimony made it probable money was in glove compartment and supported a financial motive for killing | Irrelevant and insufficient foundation for habit—no required frequency shown; it reflected Antoine’s practice not a fixed habit of the victim | Admitted: testimony established a sufficiently regular, specific practice (habit) and was relevant to motive |
| Unanimity instruction regarding rejection of self‑defense (must jury unanimously agree which element was disproven?) | General unanimity instruction was sufficient; no risk of sanctioned nonunanimous verdict here | Requested specific unanimity instruction requiring jury unanimity as to which self‑defense element the state disproved | Denied: overall charge correctly and fully instructed four self‑defense elements; factual scenario was a single incident and Rivera/Bailey/Diggs foreclose requiring a special unanimity charge absent sanctioning a non‑unanimous verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 (Conn. 1987) (state‑of‑mind hearsay exception admits forward‑looking declarations of present intent)
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (Conn. 2007) (distinguishes forward‑looking intent statements from excluded backward‑looking memory/belief)
- State v. Williams, 90 Conn. 126 (Conn. 1916) (habit evidence admissible to prove likely presence of money and motive for murder)
- United States v. Gipson, 553 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1977) (unanimity requirement applies only when alternative acts are conceptually distinct)
- State v. Bailey, 209 Conn. 322 (Conn. 1988) (expresses reservations about applying unanimity rule to self‑defense; specific charge not required on these facts)
- State v. Diggs, 219 Conn. 295 (Conn. 1991) (rejects need for specific unanimity charge where encounter was a single, brief incident)
- State v. Rivera, 221 Conn. 58 (Conn. 1992) (where trial court does not sanction nonunanimous verdict, specific unanimity instruction on self‑defense is not required)