State v. Rose
132 Conn. App. 563
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- June 2, 2007, defendant encountered victim Eugene Campagna at Sheila Schmidt’s apartment, demanded money and a hat; Schmidt called police and the defendant left.
- Later the same evening, the defendant again confronted Campagna; Bell, Davis, and Smith testified to the ensuing attack.
- Bell testified from his second-story window that the defendant punched Campagna, stomped his face, spit on him, and stole a $5 bill; Bell yelled at the defendant to stop.
- Davis, nearby, heard Bell and observed the defendant attempting to move Campagna’s body; Davis testified the defendant said Campagna owed him money.
- Smith testified from near the corner store, seeing the defendant slap, punch, throw Campagna, and take from Campagna’s pocket; Campagna died from brain injury at St. Mary’s Hospital.
- Defendant was charged with murder, felony murder, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the first degree; jury convicted on felony murder, attempt to commit robbery, and robbery; murder was deadlocked and nolle prosequi was entered later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of police statements for rehabilitation and as substantive evidence | State argues statements are admissible under 6-11(b) and Whelan | Rose contends statements were improperly admitted and violated confrontation | Admissible for rehabilitative and substantive purposes; no error in confrontation analysis |
| Double jeopardy with felony murder and robbery in the first degree | State asserts Greco/Gonzalez allow multiple punishments | Rose argues violation of double jeopardy | Not violated; Greco/Gonzalez controlling; valid to convict/sentence for both offenses |
| Cross-examining Romeo about pending charges | State argues limits needed to protect Fifth Amendment and credibility | Defendant should be able to probe specific conduct underlying charges | Limitations proper; cross-examination sufficient to satisfy confrontation clause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796 (1998) (prior consistent statements rehabilitative use when recent fabrication inferred)
- State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (1986) (rules for admission of prior inconsistent statements with cross-examination)
- State v. Hart, 118 Conn.App. 763 (2010) (Whelan-type admissibility in-appellate review)
- State v. Greco, 216 Conn. 282 (1990) (double jeopardy allowed when legislature authorizes cumulative punishment)
- State v. Gonzalez, 302 Conn. 287 (2011) (reaffirms Greco; double jeopardy not violated with felony murder and first-degree robbery)
- State v. Ortiz, 198 Conn. 220 (1985) (limits on cross-examination under confrontation clause)