State v. Snowden, 157 A.3d 1209

Background

Defendant Maurice Snowden shot and killed Michael Taylor; victim died from a single .38 caliber bullet under his left eye. Ballistics fragments were consistent with, but not positively matched to, a .38 revolver recovered from a friend’s apartment.
Police arrested Snowden at the friend’s (Avril’s) apartment; officers recovered a five‑shot .38 Smith & Wesson revolver (four cartridges present) from a clothes hamper after Snowden attempted to discard it.
State originally charged Snowden in three separate informations: murder, criminal possession of a pistol, and attempt to tamper with a witness. On the day jury selection began, the state moved to consolidate the informations; the court granted joinder after a brief hearing.
At the joinder hearing the defendant objected on grounds that evidence connecting the recovered revolver to the murder was attenuated and that consolidation would be confusing; the court conditionally allowed joinder and asked for an offer of proof, but later determined an offer was unnecessary.
Snowden did not renew his objection or move for severance after the court allowed consolidation. Trial resulted in convictions for murder and criminal possession (tampering acquittal); defendant appealed arguing improper joinder and seeking a new harmless‑error standard.
Appellate court concluded the defendant failed to preserve his joinder challenge (distinct argument raised on appeal was not presented at trial), and therefore did not reach the merits or the proposed harmless‑error standard; judgment affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by joinder of separate informations (murder + possession)	State: Joinder proper because evidence would be cross‑admissible (possession shows means; tampering shows consciousness of guilt); Boscarino factors satisfied	Snowden: Consolidation prejudicial because murder allegations were substantially more brutal/shocking and evidence connecting revolver to murder was weak/attenuated	Court: Unreviewable — defendant failed to preserve the distinct appellate claim at trial (no motion to sever or renewed objection); presumes trial court considered correct standards
Whether the appellate court should adopt a new harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional claims	State: Existing harmless‑error standards suffice (did not advocate new standard)	Snowden: Court should adopt a “clear failure of judicial obligation” standard for harmless‑error review under these facts	Court: Not reached because preservation failure on joinder claim; appeal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714 (1987) (factors to assess prejudice from consolidation of charges)
State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 (2012) (state bears burden to show joinder will not substantially prejudice defendant)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (2012) (joinder discretion must be exercised consistent with fair trial; errors may be harmless)
State v. Devon D., 321 Conn. 656 (2016) (clarifies burden on state and appellate review standard for joinder)
State v. Berube, 256 Conn. 742 (2001) (failure to move severance at trial renders claim unreviewable)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (2014) (clarifies procedure to obtain Golding review via main brief)
Rowe v. Superior Court, 289 Conn. 649 (2008) (appellate courts generally limit review to issues distinctly raised at trial)
State v. Randolph, 284 Conn. 328 (2007) (trial by ambuscade principle; appellate review of claims not raised below discouraged)