153 Conn.App. 69
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant charged with robbery in the first degree and larceny in the third degree following a March 2011 bank robbery in Hamden.
- Prosecution’s key witness Palmieri described the perp’s clothing and appearance but could not positively identify Reddick.
- Jackson, a second crucial witness, initially did not identify but later provided statements and a photo array identification.
- Bank surveillance footage and booking photo evidence showed a match to the defendant.
- Money recovered from the arrest included mutilated bills consistent with bank records, tying him to the robbery.
- Court convicted the defendant after a jury trial and imposed a 25-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence | Reddick argues Palmieri’s lack of positive ID; other evidence jointly proves identity | Identity could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt |
| Instruction on witness drug use | Trial court failed to tailor instructions to Jackson’s PCP use | General eyewitness instruction adequately covered credibility issues | No reversible error; charge adequate |
| Fallibility of eyewitness identifications | Jury should have been instructed on eyewitness fallibility | Waived/unpreserved claim; not reviewed | Claim waived; no reversal on this basis |
| Motion for a new trial | Motion preserved issues for review | Motion not distinctly raised; not preserved | Motion for a new trial not reviewed on appeal |
| Privileged material disclosure and right to counsel | Inadvertent disclosure harmed defense; relief needed | Waived due to defense assent to safeguarding measures | Waiver forecloses Golding/plain error review; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grant, 127 Conn. App. 654 (Conn. App. 2011) (sufficiency review standard for evidence)
- State v. Felder, 99 Conn. App. 18 (Conn. App. 2007) (identity question for jury; credibility not revisited on appeal)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) ( Golding standard for nonpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (implied waiver when counsel reviews proposed charges)
- State v. Lenarz, 301 Conn. 417 (Conn. 2011) (distinguishes in handling privileged material disclosures)