178 Conn. App. 102
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Ricardo O. Myers was tried by jury and convicted of murder and two first‑degree assault counts for a May 18, 2013 shooting that killed Tirrell Drew and injured two bystanders.
- Ballistics linked two bullets recovered from Drew to a .40 caliber Glock owned by Myers and recovered from his home about a month later.
- Six days after the shooting, Latrell Rountree (unavailable at trial) told police in a videotaped interview that Gary Pope — not Myers — was the shooter.
- Myers could not produce Rountree at trial and sought to admit Rountree’s videotaped police interview under the residual hearsay exception (Conn. Code Evid. § 8-9); the trial court excluded it.
- On appeal Myers argued the exclusion was an abuse of discretion; however, he did not analyze in his principal brief how exclusion was harmful and instead raised harmfulness for the first time in his reply brief.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, holding Myers forfeited review of harm because he failed to brief that analysis in his principal brief; the court declined to reach the admissibility merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of videotaped out‑of‑court statement under the residual hearsay exception | State: exclusion was within trial court discretion and admissibility not shown | Myers: videotape was trustworthy and essential; admissible under residual exception | Not reached (appellate review declined) because defendant failed to brief harmfulness in principal brief |
| Preservation / harmfulness requirement for nonconstitutional evidentiary error | State: appellant must show harm in principal brief; argument first made in reply is forfeited | Myers: harm is implicit because tape imputes third‑party culpability and prejudice is obvious | Held for State — claim unreviewable for failure to analyze harm in principal brief; exclusion must be shown harmful and raised in principal brief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810 (Conn. App. 2017) (appellant must show harmfulness of nonconstitutional evidentiary errors in principal brief)
- State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296 (Conn. 1997) (arguments cannot be raised for first time in reply brief)
- Markley v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 301 Conn. 56 (Conn. 2011) (appellee entitled to respond; new arguments in reply improper)
- Calcano v. Calcano, 257 Conn. 230 (Conn. 2001) (errors must be raised in original/principal brief)
- State v. Holmes, 176 Conn. App. 156 (Conn. App. 2017) (deeming claim abandoned where appellant failed to brief harm from evidentiary ruling)
- State v. Shehadeh, 52 Conn. App. 46 (Conn. App. 1999) (abuse of discretion review for residual hearsay exclusion and requirement to show substantial prejudice)