State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538

Payne was convicted at trial of felony murder, robbery, larceny, carrying a pistol without a permit, criminal possession of a firearm, attempt to tamper with a juror, and conspiracy to tamper with a juror, with a total sentence of 67 years.
On remand from a prior direct appeal, the trial court joined the felony murder and jury tampering cases for trial after a mistrial; the cases were later tried together.
Payne challenged the joinder as improper under Boscarino; the State contended the court properly weighed the factors in light of King’s presumption in favor of joinder.
The defense also challenged the admissibility of a witness’s testimony about a threat Payne allegedly made, and later challenged prosecutorial impropriety during closing and rebuttal.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the joinder was improper but harmless, admitted an improper but harmless statement, and found prosecutorial improprieties were improper yet not prejudicial to due process.
The court overruled King’s blanket presumption in favor of joinder and clarified the shifting burden of proof depending on whether charges are joined in one information or in separate informations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joinder of the two cases for trial was proper	Payne argues Boscarino factors support severance.	State contends joinder was proper under Boscarino and King presumption.	Joinder was improper but harmless.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Payne's statement to Thomas during redirect	Admission was improper and opened door improperly.	State opened the door during cross-examination; admission justified.	Admission improper but harmless.
Whether prosecutorial improprieties deprived Payne of due process	Three remarks during closing/rebuttal were improper and prejudicial.	Improprieties were isolated and cured by curative instructions; not prejudicial.	Prosecutorial improprieties improper but not prejudicial to due process.

State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714 (1987) (three-factor test for joinder and severance)
State v. King, 187 Conn. 292 (1982) (presumption in favor of joinder; same-character offenses)
State v. Davis, 286 Conn. 17 (2008) (rejected blanket presumption; Boscarino factors; severance guidance)
State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78 (1989) (discrete factual scenarios; timeliness of joinder)
State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364 (2003) (limiting improper cross-case inferences; evidence separate from record)
State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 (2007) (two-step analysis for prosecutorial impropriety and due process)
State v. Angel T., 292 Conn. 262 (2009) (burden-shifting when prosecutorial impropriety invades enumerated rights; harmlessness framework)
State v. Tomas D., 296 Conn. 476 (2010) (harmful impact analysis for prosecutorial impropriety; Williams factors)
State v. Cassidy, 236 Conn. 112 (1996) (confrontation-clause impropriety requires harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290 (2000) (substantial prejudice standard for prosecutorial misconduct)