169 Conn. App. 794
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Joseph Walker arranged to buy $6,150 worth of cocaine from victim David Caban; on May 12, 2012 a meeting occurred at Caban’s Waterbury home.
- A struggle occurred at the rear passenger side of a vehicle occupied by Walker and Solomon Taylor; shots were fired from a revolver, and the victim was shot and later died.
- The vehicle fled with the victim partially inside; occupants later cleaned the car, removed items, and attempted to conceal a phone; blood and pieces of crack were observed in the car.
- Walker was arrested in New York, tried by jury, and convicted of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a firearm; sentences were imposed concurrently totaling 60 years (25 mandatory).
- On appeal Walker challenged sufficiency of evidence for robbery and conspiracy to rob, the jury instruction for conspiracy (firearm element), and the trial court’s failure to give an accomplice/informant credibility instruction regarding witness Alexia Bates.
- The Appellate Court affirmed all convictions except it vacated the conspiracy to commit robbery conviction and sentence on double jeopardy grounds (single agreement with multiple objectives).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Walker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery and conspiracy to rob | Evidence (circumstantial + inferences) supported that Walker and Taylor induced victim to produce the drugs and forcibly took them; robbery and conspiracy proven | The confrontation was a drug deal gone wrong; no evidence Walker intended to steal or agreed to rob the victim | Affirmed — cumulative circumstantial evidence permitted a jury to find intent to rob and an agreement to do so |
| Jury instruction for conspiracy (whether agreement must include use of firearm) | Not raised as sole basis by state on appeal; court and parties agreed remedy required vacatur for double jeopardy | Walker argued the court failed to instruct that conspirators agreed to use a firearm, undermining conspiracy conviction | Conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery vacated on double jeopardy grounds (single agreement gave rise to conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to rob) |
| Double jeopardy from multiple conspiracy convictions | State conceded issue; court found conspiracies arose from single multi-objective agreement, making cumulative convictions improper | Walker argued cumulative conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy | Vacatur of conspiracy to commit robbery conviction and sentence; remainder of convictions affirmed |
| Failure to instruct on accomplice/informant credibility regarding Bates | Trial court had discretion; no preserved request or objection; state argued waiver; supervisory review unnecessary | Walker argued Bates was effectively an accomplice and court should have sua sponte instructed jury to scrutinize her testimony | Waived by defendant; plain error review foreclosed; appellate court declined to exercise supervisory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gonzalez, 311 Conn. 408 (Conn. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and the treatment of circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Danforth, 315 Conn. 518 (Conn. 2015) (conspiracy elements and inference of agreement from conduct)
- State v. Wright, 320 Conn. 781 (Conn. 2016) (double jeopardy and cumulative punishments for conspiracy offenses; remedy guidance)
- State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 (Conn. 2013) (vacatur as remedy for cumulative convictions when appropriate)
- State v. Ortiz, 252 Conn. 533 (Conn. 2000) (double jeopardy principles for conspiracies from a single agreement)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1996) (cumulative convictions can have adverse collateral consequences)
- State v. Miranda, 317 Conn. 741 (Conn. 2015) (vacatur remedy for cumulative homicide convictions)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (waiver of jury-instruction claims and effect on plain-error review)
- State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 (Conn. 2011) (trial court discretion to give special credibility instruction for witnesses with potential benefits)