State v. Ramos
175 A.3d 1265
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On October 10, 2008, Tynel Hardwick was shot outside Rumors Bar in Norwich; police later found .22 rounds and physical evidence at the scene.
- Jose E. Ramos was arrested in Brooklyn in 2012, extradited to Connecticut, tried for murder, and convicted by a jury; he received an effective 60-year sentence.
- Key evidence at trial included multiple confessions by Ramos (to family, friends, handwritten apology letters, and a videotaped police interview) and eyewitness testimony from a friend who said he saw Ramos shoot the victim.
- Before trial Ramos moved to suppress postarrest statements; the court denied the motion but deferred ruling on the admissibility of post-Miranda silence; at trial Detective Poore testified that Ramos did not respond when accused of the murder after receiving Miranda warnings.
- Ramos did not object at trial to Poore’s testimony about his non-response or to cross-examination references to prior arrests/character; he raised these claims on appeal as sufficiency, Doyle/Miranda violation, plain error for uncharged misconduct evidence, and prosecutorial impropriety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ramos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence (confessions, eyewitness, letters, videotaped statement) supports conviction | Inconsistent witness testimony and witness motives made evidence unreliable; no reasonable juror could credit it | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, jurors reasonably could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Use of post-Miranda silence (Doyle claim) | No Doyle violation because Ramos waived rights and answered many questions; his selective silence was not invocation | Testimony that Ramos did not deny the murder after Miranda violated Doyle and the Fifth/14th Amendments | Affirmed: no constitutional violation — Ramos answered other questions and did not invoke his right to remain silent; selective silence permitted |
| Admission of uncharged misconduct / prior arrests (plain error) | Any references were not so prejudicial as to constitute plain error given strength of evidence | Cross-examiner’s references to "convicted felon" and eight prior arrests were highly prejudicial and unpreserved; plain error review warranted | Affirmed: not plain error — defendant failed to show an obvious error affecting fairness or public confidence |
| Prosecutorial impropriety (leading questions on cross) | Leading questions were proper on cross-examination; no due process violation | Excessive leading and cumulative prosecutorial misconduct deprived Ramos of a fair trial | Affirmed: no impropriety — leading questions appropriate on cross; defendant failed to show due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standard for unpreserved constitutional claims review)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post‑Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach a defendant)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warning and waiver framework)
- State v. Talton, 197 Conn. 280 (Conn. 1985) (selective silence after waiver may not invoke Doyle protections)
- State v. Silva, 166 Conn. App. 255 (Conn. App. 2016) (no Doyle violation where defendant answered many questions but was silent on the ultimate inculpatory question)