State v. Washington, 284 A.3d 280

Background

Defendant Jayvell Washington was in a parked Mini Cooper at a Bridgeport Citgo when Eugene Rogers approached on foot; surveillance shows the driver’s door opening and both men firing; Rogers died and Washington was arrested.
Surveillance footage could not conclusively show who fired first; there were no eyewitnesses to that critical fact.
The morning after arrest Washington made two recorded holding‑cell phone calls to his sister and acquaintances; he gave brief affirmative responses when they described video showing him in the car and that the victim “backed up when he seen you had it.”
The trial court admitted those recordings as adoptive admissions; Washington was convicted of first‑degree intentional manslaughter (lesser included), criminal possession of a pistol, and carrying a pistol without a permit.
During the charge conference the court gave a jury instruction on the statutory exception to self‑defense for an illegal “combat by agreement,” over Washington’s objection.
Jurors returned their verdict March 12, 2020 (the same day the Judicial Branch announced suspension of new jury trials in response to COVID‑19); Washington later moved for a new trial claiming the pandemic pressured jurors to rush deliberations; the trial court denied the motion and Washington appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Washington's Argument	Held
Admission of holding‑cell phone recordings under Doyle v. Ohio	Recordings were adoptive admissions and relevant to identity and who fired	Admission violated Doyle because recordings used post‑Miranda silence against him	Unpreserved Doyle claim unreviewable—record lacks factual predicate (no proof Miranda warnings were given before calls)
Jury instruction on combat by agreement (§ 53a‑19(c)(3))	Evidence (bad relationship, video of movements) supported reasonable inference of tacit mutual combat	No evidence of an agreement or prior ongoing controversy to warrant instruction	Instruction was erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (jury verdict turned on credibility/inference who fired first)
Prosecutor’s closing‑argument remarks (facts not in evidence / referencing post‑Miranda silence)	Remarks were fair comment on evidence and reasonable inferences; prosecutor reasonably assumed combat instruction would be given	Remarks drew attention to post‑Miranda silence and assumed facts not proven	Doyle‑based objection unreviewable for lack of record; other comments were permissible commentary on the evidence and reasonable inferences (no prosecutorial impropriety)
Motion for new trial alleging COVID‑19 pressured jurors to rush verdict	No record evidence jurors knew of or were affected by the suspension order; motion untimely and unsupported	Pandemic created context that likely rushed jurors and denied fair trial; new trial warranted	Claim unreviewable/unsupported on record—defendant failed to show jurors were aware of or impacted by pandemic orders; trial court denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (prohibits using a defendant’s post‑Miranda silence to impeach or as substantive proof)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requires warnings before custodial interrogation)
Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986) (explains the unfairness of promising silence will not be used and then using it)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455 (1988) (extends Doyle rationale to bar use of post‑Miranda silence as affirmative proof)
State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517 (1986) (Doyle inapplicable when record lacks indication Miranda warnings were given)
State v. Quintana, 209 Conn. 34 (1988) (instructional error may be harmless where jury resolves case as credibility contest between conflicting versions)
State v. O’Bryan, 318 Conn. 621 (2015) (combat by agreement instruction warranted only when evidence supports reasonable inference of mutual combat)