State v. Torres
167 A.3d 365
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On July 23, 2012 a man was fatally shot near a Burger King drive‑through; defendant Quavon Torres was arrested and charged with murder and carrying a pistol without a permit.
- Two eyewitnesses (Jones and Hall) gave statements hours after the shooting and failed to identify Torres from photographic lineups; other witnesses (Pickette, Lloyd) gave mixed or inconsistent identifications and statements.
- Police seized a .38 revolver from the defendant’s cousin’s residence; ballistics linked the gun to three of four bullets, but DNA on the gun did not match Torres.
- Nearly two years before trial defense counsel filed a motion to suppress identifications; the trial court never ruled on it and trial counsel did not renew the motion; no contemporaneous objection was made when Jones gave a first‑time in‑court identification at trial.
- Jones, who had not identified Torres pretrial, pointed to him in court as the shooter; the jury requested playback of only Jones’ testimony and convicted Torres of murder and illegal possession of a pistol.
- On appeal, Torres argued Jones’ first‑time in‑court identification violated due process under State v. Dickson; the Appellate Court reversed and ordered a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant waived challenge to Jones’ first‑time in‑court identification | State: defendant waived by failing to press pretrial suppression motion and not objecting at trial | Torres: could not waive because, before Dickson, first‑time in‑court IDs were permissible and he lacked notice of the right | No waiver — court declines to find waiver given state of law at time and lack of reason to object |
| Whether Jones’ first‑time in‑court identification was a suggestive procedure implicating due process under Dickson | State: identification was permissible because no suggestive out‑of‑court procedure existed | Torres: Dickson requires prescreening and a first‑time in‑court ID after an unsuccessful out‑of‑court ID is unreliable | Held that Dickson applies: first‑time in‑court ID here was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable |
| Whether the trial record permitted appellate resolution or required remand for a Dickson reliability hearing | State: remand or review not necessary; evidence otherwise supported conviction | Torres: record (failed photographic lineup, vague description, two‑year delay) is adequate to assess unreliability on appeal | Court found the record adequate to conclude unreliability and addressed harmlessness on appeal |
| Whether the admission of Jones’ identification was harmless error | State: error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Torres: identification was material and its admission prejudiced the verdict | Not harmless — identification likely affected jury (playback request) and case contained inconsistent evidence; reversal and new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410 (Conn. 2016) (first‑time in‑court identifications must be prescreened; unreliable IDs admitted without prior nonsuggestive ID violate due process)
- State v. Smith, 200 Conn. 465 (Conn. 1986) (prior rule: exclude in‑court IDs only when tainted by suggestive out‑of‑court procedures)
- State v. Marquez, 291 Conn. 122 (Conn. 2009) (two‑prong test: suggestiveness of procedure and reliability under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (Conn. 1986) (admissibility of prior recorded or written inconsistent statements when declarant testifies and is subject to cross‑examination)