State v. Salmond
180 A.3d 979
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Victim (Ware) was fatally shot July 17, 2013; Richard Jackson ("Jackson"), the front‑seat passenger, witnessed the shooting and later identified defendant Dennis Salmond as the shooter.
- Police conducted a blind sequential eight‑photo array; during Jackson’s interview a detective inadvertently used the defendant’s street name and showed surveillance video that included the defendant; the trial court found the out‑of‑court identification procedure "unnecessarily suggestive" and suppressed the out‑of‑court identification.
- Jackson testified at a suppression hearing that he knew the defendant from multiple encounters on Sixth Street, recognized his voice and appearance, and identified the defendant in court as the shooter; the trial court admitted Jackson’s in‑court identification, finding the state proved its reliability by clear and convincing evidence.
- At trial the jury saw incriminating surveillance footage (the defendant conceded he was the person in the video), a recorded jail call by the defendant, and Jackson’s in‑court identification; the jury convicted the defendant of murder and illegal possession of a firearm.
- Defendant moved for special jury instructions (limiting use of the suggestive out‑of‑court ID and a special credibility instruction for Jackson as an accomplice or jailhouse informant); the trial court denied those requests and the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Salmond's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by admitting Jackson’s in‑court identification after suppressing the out‑of‑court ID as suggestive | Even though the photo procedure was suggestive, the state proved by clear and convincing evidence Jackson’s in‑court ID was based on independent recollection (prior familiarity, opportunity to view, consistent description, short lapse) | In‑court ID was tainted by the suggestive out‑of‑court procedure; prior acquaintance was too brief to establish reliability | Court affirmed admission: findings that Jackson was personally familiar, had good opportunity to view, and ID was reliable were supported by record; any error would be harmless given other strong evidence |
| Whether the court should have charged the jury that the out‑of‑court ID is not substantive evidence because it was suggestive | Trial court not required to give a charge precluding jurors from considering the out‑of‑court ID; defendant failed to preserve the specific requested instruction | Requested charge preserved the claim and should have directed jury that the suggestive pretrial ID is not substantive evidence of guilt | Not reviewed on appeal: claim not preserved—request to charge did not expressly seek that limitation and counsel’s objection did not supply specific grounds |
| Whether the court abused discretion by refusing special credibility instructions (accomplice or jailhouse informant) for Jackson | Jackson’s incarceration and his negotiation attempts during the interview could warrant a special credibility instruction | Jackson was effectively an eyewitness (not shown to be an accomplice or a jailhouse informant whose testimony related to confessions), so no special instruction required | Affirmed: record did not support accomplice instruction; jailhouse‑informant rule (special instruction) applies to inmates who testify about confessions by fellow inmates, not to incarcerated eyewitnesses; general credibility instruction sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (framework for assessing reliability of identifications after suggestive procedures)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors for evaluating reliability of eyewitness ID)
- State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (Conn. 2005) (two‑pronged test: suggestiveness, then totality reliability inquiry)
- State v. Mitchell, 204 Conn. 187 (Conn. 1987) (state must establish by clear and convincing evidence that in‑court ID is independent after tainted pretrial ID)
- State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410 (Conn. 2016) (in‑court IDs require pre‑screening when identity is disputed; different standard when preceded by suggestive pretrial ID)
- State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (Conn. 2005) (jailhouse informant special‑instruction rule)
- State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 (Conn. 2011) (limits on applying the jailhouse‑informant instruction to incarcerated eyewitnesses)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional errors)