State v. Thompson
45 A.3d 605
Conn.2012Background
- Anthony Thompson was convicted of murder and two counts of first-degree assault for a 2005 Hartford bar shooting.
- Glace, a deceased eyewitness, identified Thompson as the shooter in a sworn statement and a contemporaneous photographic array.
- Glace died from gunshot wounds after the state sought to admit her statement under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine.
- The trial court applied a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine forfeiture, overruling defense objections.
- Evidence showed Thompson’s involvement included jailhouse statements and communications with his brother about harming potential witnesses.
- Thompson fled to Jamaica after the shooting; he later sought medical treatment under another name.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for forfeiture proof | Thompson forfeited confrontation rights; preponderance applies | Clear and convincing is required | Connecticut adopts preponderance standard for § 8-6(8) forfeiture |
| Sufficiency to prove procurement of witness unavailability | Evidence showed defendant planned or caused Glace’s death to prevent testimony | Insufficient linkage between Thompson and Glace’s death | Evidence sufficient by preponderance to find procurement of unavailability |
| Admission of consciousness of guilt evidence tied to Glace's death | Evidentiary use proper to show consciousness of guilt; limiting instructions given | Unreviewed, improper, and prejudicial | Court’s sua sponte admission was reviewable but harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 (1987) (recognizes confrontation right issues and forgoes when witness unavailable due to defendant's wrongdoing)
- State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515 (2003) (forfeiture doctrine discussed in admissibility context)
- State v. James, 237 Conn. 390 (1996) (preponderance vs clear and convincing in confession voluntariness and related determinations)
- U.S. v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) (forfeiture doctrine and witness unavailability)
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (no one shall benefit from his own wrong)