State v. Morgan, 140 Conn. App. 182

Morgan was convicted after a jury trial in docket CR-09-0095016 of aggravated sexual assault in the first degree, kidnapping with a firearm, and threatening, and in docket CR-09-0095017 of attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault, attempt to commit kidnapping with a firearm, assault, and criminal mischief; total sentence 41 years with 6 years minimum.
Two separate attacks occurred: victim one (Sept. 6, 2008, on university campus) and victim two (June 2, 2009, near university grounds); DNA from victim one’s shirt matched Morgan.
The defense challenged sufficiency of the evidence and consolidation for trial, claiming prejudice and improper joinder under Boscarino factors; the state argued cross-admissibility and efficiency.
Police recovered evidence linking Morgan to the crimes, including DNA from victim one’s shirt and a T-shirt with a DNA match to Morgan from victim two’s scene, plus clothing, air-soft gun materials, and photos.
The trial court granted consolidation (later challenged) based on cross-admissibility of evidence on identity, intent, and propensity; Morgan was convicted on all counts except robbery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the evidence sufficient to convict on victim one’s charges?	State asserts substantial evidence, including DNA and corroborating circumstantial items.	Morgan contends DNA alone was insufficient; other evidence insufficient.	Yes; evidence, including DNA and corroborating factors, supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Is there sufficient evidence to convict on victim two’s charges?	State asserts DNA plus eyewitness-like descriptions and behavior links.	Morgan argues DNA on T-shirt is insufficient alone.	Yes; corroborating description and clothing evidence, plus DNA, support guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Was consolidation for trial proper given potential prejudice?	State shows cross admissibility across cases under DeJesus factors; consolidation beneficial.	Morgan argues prejudice from cross-case narrative and Gupta/Payne concerns.	Yes; consolidation proper due to cross admissibility and curative jury instructions.
Were prosecutorial comments improper in light of consolidation ruling?	Prosecutor’s comments were aligned with cross-admissibility ruling.	Morgan claims improper emphasis on connectivity between cases.	Not improper; comments based on evidence and court rulings; claim recharacterizes consolidation ruling.

State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 (2010) (propensity evidence under liberal common plan/exceptions)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (2008) (propensity evidence, prior sexual misconduct admissibility limits)
State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 (2012) (joinder under Practice Book § 41-19; cross admissibility standard)
State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714 (1987) (Boscarino factors for prejudice in joinder)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (2012) (reassessment of presumption in favor of consolidation)
State v. Ellis, 270 Conn. 337 (2004) (prejudice and instructional curative power in joinder)
State v. Fourtin, 307 Conn. 186 (2012) (standard for evidentiary sufficiency review)
State v. Rosado, 134 Conn. App. 505 (2012) (DNA and circumstantial evidence admissibility)
State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (2005) (circumstantial evidence admissibility and weight)