191 Conn.App. 315
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- On July 31, 2012, two victims (Gonzalez and Rivera) were approached at gunpoint while in a car; the passenger (the defendant, Emmit Scott) and co‑defendant Ernest Harris robbed them, G was later fatally shot. The encounter lasted about ten minutes.
- Rivera described the passenger assailant (full beard, ~5'5", ~160 lbs, white hat backwards, black T‑shirt) and failed to identify anyone in several photo arrays; one array contained an outdated photo of Scott.
- Both Scott and Harris were arraigned in custody on August 13, 2012; Rivera attended the arraignment and "instantly" identified Scott and Harris among about fourteen custodial arraignees; he told an inspector he was "100 percent certain."
- Scott moved to suppress Rivera’s out‑of‑court (arraignment) and in‑court identifications; the trial court denied the motion after suppression hearings that included expert testimony on eyewitness reliability. Scott was convicted of two counts of first‑degree robbery ( acquitted of murder).
- On appeal, Scott argued (1) the identifications should have been suppressed under federal and Connecticut constitutions; (2) insufficient evidence supported the robbery conviction as to Gonzalez; and (3) the judge who presided over Harris’s trial (and ruled on a similar suppression motion) should have been disqualified. The trial court’s rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Scott's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arraignment identification was so suggestive that it must be suppressed under federal due process | Even if suggestive, Rivera had strong Biggers factors (opportunity to view, attention, accurate prior description, immediate high certainty, short delay) so identification was reliable | Arraignment was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable (poor lighting, short observation, beard discrepancy, failed photo array, weapon focus, stress, cross‑race, unconscious transference) | Denial of suppression affirmed; under Biggers the identification was reliable and admissible, and in‑court ID not tainted |
| Whether suppression also required under Connecticut constitution (art. I, § 8) per State v. Harris | Any deviations would be harmless; Biggers analysis would yield same result under Harris/Guilbert factors | Harris requires broader reliability review and would compel suppression because of system/estimator concerns (e.g., unconscious transference) | Harmless‑error: application of Biggers instead of Harris standard would not have produced a different outcome; suppression not required |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Gonzalez’s property was taken and that Scott was a principal | Jury could infer G’s cash and phone were taken during the robbery and that Scott acted in concert with Harris as principal | No direct proof any property was taken from Gonzalez and no proof Scott (as opposed to Harris) took it; at most accessory liability | Evidence sufficient: Rivera checked the car and found Gonzalez’s cash/phone missing; Scott and Harris acted together as principals, so robbery conviction supported |
| Motion to disqualify Judge Fischer (who previously presided over Harris’s suppression/trial and praised Rivera) | Prior involvement and praise did not show bias; judge heard different evidence in Scott’s suppression hearing and did not display extreme prejudgment | Fischer’s prior rulings and sentencing praise of Rivera create an appearance of partiality; a reasonable person would question impartiality | Denial affirmed: no objective basis showing judge would be unable to be fair; prior familiarity or commendation not extreme enough to require recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (reliability factors for admissibility of ID under federal due process)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (confirming reliability as linchpin for identification admissibility)
- State v. Harris, 330 Conn. 91 (modifying Connecticut standard for eyewitness ID; adopting Guilbert factors and Henderson burden‑shifting)
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (cataloguing system and estimator variables affecting eyewitness reliability)
- State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410 (principles on suppression of in‑court IDs following suggestive pretrial IDs)
- State v. Rizzo, 303 Conn. 71 (recusal standard: prior opinions/knowledge rarely require disqualification absent extreme statements)