State v. Pena, 22 A.3d 611

Defendant Pena convicted of carrying a pistol without a permit (29-35) and criminal possession of a firearm (53a-217)(a)(1); found not guilty of murder and lesser-included manslaughter with a firearm; sentence 10 years (5 with 1 mandatory, plus 5 with 2 mandatory)
Incident at Main & Tower Cafe in Hartford in early hours of April 10, 2005; dispute with victim escalated from verbal to physical with both displaying firearms; victim fatally shot
Prosecution introduced testimony that Pena possessed a similar black pistol prior to the shooting to show means/opportunity; relationship between prior possession and charged offenses contested
At sentencing, trial court considered, among other things, Pena’s criminal history, probation status, presentence report, and flight from arrest; court discussed murder/manslaughter charges Pena was acquitted of
Jury found Pena not guilty of the murder/manslaughter charges; Pena appeals claiming improper admission of prior-possession testimony and improper use of acquitted-charge evidence in sentencing
Court affirms trial court’s rulings on both issues, upholding admissibility of prior-possession evidence and the Huey framework allowing consideration of acquitted-charge evidence in sentencing

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior possession evidence	State: evidence relevant to means/opportunity; probative value outweighs prejudice	Pena: evidence not relevant; prejudicial	Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion
Consideration of acquitted-charge evidence in sentencing	State: Huey allows sentencing consideration of such evidence	Pena: violates due process/jury rights	Huey controls; court may rely on acquitted-charge evidence in sentencing; no due process violation

State v. Huey, 199 Conn. 121 (1986) (trial court may consider evidence bearing on acquitted charges; minimal reliability needed)
State v. Cutler, 293 Conn. 303 (2009) (uncharged misconduct admissible if relevant and probative with proper balancing)
United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1972) (sentencing may consider wide range of information, including inadmissible at trial)
United States v. Baylin, 696 F.2d 1030 (3d Cir. 1982) (due process requires information have reliability before sentence)
United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir.) (pre-sentence information may include information beyond guilt evidence)
United States v. Robelo, 596 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1979) (due process scope of information in sentencing)
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (sentencing may consider broad information from diverse sources)
Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959) (due process in considering information for sentencing)