State v. Ruocco
144 A.3d 354
| Conn. | 2016Background
- Defendant Dustin Ruocco was convicted of third‑degree burglary and larceny after evidence (eyewitness testimony and subsequent sale of stolen wire) tied him to items taken from a shed adjacent to his rented residence.
- At trial the court failed to give the specific statutory "no adverse inference" jury instruction required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑84(b) unless the accused requests otherwise.
- The Appellate Court reversed the conviction, holding that a complete omission of the § 54‑84(b) instruction is per se plain error requiring reversal (relying on State v. Suplicki and earlier state authority).
- Justice Espinosa (dissenting, joined by Justice Robinson) would overrule that line of authority and hold that failure to give the instruction is subject to harmless‑error/plain‑error review — not automatic reversal.
- Applying harmless‑error review, the dissent concluded the omission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the cumulative, strong circumstantial evidence and protective jury instructions (presumption of innocence, burden of proof), and would reinstate the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ruocco) | Held (Dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complete omission of § 54‑84(b) instruction is per se reversible plain error | Suplicki controls: total omission is plain error requiring reversal; statutory language is mandatory | Statute’s mandatory language means total omission by trial court is per se harmful | Rejection of per se rule; omission is subject to harmless‑error/plain‑error review requiring a showing of manifest injustice |
| Standard of review/remedy for violation of § 54‑84(b) | Must reverse without harmless‑error analysis when instruction entirely omitted | Automatic reversal when omission is total, relying on Burke/Sinclair | Harmless‑error analysis applies; state must prove harmlessness beyond reasonable doubt where constitutional right implicated |
| Whether omission here caused manifest injustice | N/A (Appellate Court reversed) | N/A (defendant claimed prejudice from omission) | No: given strong eyewitness and corroborating circumstantial evidence and appropriate general jury instructions, omission was harmless |
| Whether precedent (Suplicki, Burke, Sinclair) should remain controlling | Appellate precedent supports automatic reversal | Precedent protects statutory right and supports per se rule | Overrule Suplicki/Burke/Sinclair to the extent they require per se reversal; align with federal and majority state practice permitting harmless‑error review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Suplicki, 33 Conn. App. 126 (Conn. App. 1993) (Appellate Court held total omission of § 54‑84(b) instruction is per se plain error)
- State v. Burke, 182 Conn. 330 (Conn. 1980) (this court held failure to give § 54‑84(b) instruction was plain error requiring reversal)
- State v. Sinclair, 197 Conn. 574 (Conn. 1985) (treated omission as harmful error and discussed whether harmless‑error review applies)
- Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1981) (constitutional decision requiring requested jury instruction that no adverse inference be drawn from failure to testify)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (United States Supreme Court held omission of an element is subject to harmless‑error analysis)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (Supreme Court accepts harmless‑error review for significant constitutional errors)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prohibits prosecutorial comment drawing adverse inference from defendant’s silence)
- State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64 (Conn. 2013) (plain‑error doctrine requires showing both obvious error and manifest injustice; failure to follow prophylactic procedural rules not enough without harm)
- State v. Jamison, 320 Conn. 589 (Conn. 2016) (applied stringent manifest‑injustice standard under plain‑error review)
- State v. Dudla, 190 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1983) (distinguished by dissent — single uncorroborated witness made failure to instruct harmful here)
- United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560 (1st Cir. 1996) (Carter‑related omission is subject to harmless‑error analysis)