State v. Miller, 150 Conn.App. 667

Defendant Reginald Miller was convicted of conspiracy to commit forgery (2d deg.), aiding and abetting forgery (2d deg.), conspiracy to commit larceny (5th deg., later merged), and attempt to commit larceny (5th deg.) arising from a scheme in which he prepared forged checks and arranged for accomplice Loretta Berenz to cash them.
Berenz, Miller’s longtime acquaintance and admitted coconspirator, testified for the state; she had pleaded guilty to related charges and was awaiting sentencing at the time of Miller’s trial.
At trial Berenz described the charged March 7, 2012 incident and also testified that about a month earlier Miller had provided her another forged check to cash (uncharged misconduct). The trial court admitted that testimony under the common plan/scheme exception and instructed the jury limiting its use.
Miller objected below to admission of the uncharged-act testimony as propensity evidence; he did not request an accomplice-specific jury instruction nor except to the court’s failure to give one.
On appeal Miller challenged (1) admission of the uncharged-misconduct evidence and (2) the trial court’s omission of an accomplice credibility instruction; the court affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of testimony about a prior instance where Miller gave Berenz a forged check (uncharged misconduct)	Evidence was admissible to prove common plan/scheme, intent, and lack of mistake	Testimony was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial propensity evidence under Conn. Code Evid. §4-5	Court upheld admission under the common plan/scheme exception; probative value outweighed prejudice
Whether omission of an accomplice instruction constitutes plain error requiring reversal	State conceded error but argued any error was harmless and not plain error	Miller argued failure to instruct on accomplice credibility was plain error because the case rested on accomplice testimony	Court found omission was error but not plain error: omission was not shown to be harmful or to cause manifest injustice

State v. Dillard, 132 Conn. App. 414 (Conn. App. 2011) (discussing admissibility framework for other-acts evidence)
State v. Randolph, 284 Conn. 328 (Conn. 2007) (distinguishing two categories of common-scheme evidence)
State v. Hill, 307 Conn. 689 (Conn. 2013) (stating factors for weighing probative value against undue prejudice)
State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64 (Conn. 2013) (articulating plain error two-pronged test and manifest injustice standard)
State v. Moore, 293 Conn. 781 (Conn. 2009) (on accomplice credibility instruction and burden to show due process violation)