153 Conn.App. 611
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Norwich police stopped a vehicle on Nov. 18, 2011 after observing traffic violations; defendant Willoughby was a passenger.
- Officer Calouro observed Willoughby place his hand at the small of his back and, based on that movement plus prior information that Willoughby had been involved in a shooting and drug sales, asked him to exit and performed a patdown.
- During the patdown, Calouro felt a hard object; Willoughby struggled, an item fell and was kicked under the car; it was recovered and tested positive for cocaine.
- At the station Willoughby used a false name, later admitted his identity, made inculpatory statements, and consented to a search of his apartment where marijuana and cash were found.
- Willoughby was convicted by a jury of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, interfering with an officer, second‑degree forgery, and criminal impersonation; he appealed challenging (1) admission of Calouro’s testimony about prior information and (2) denial of his motion to suppress evidence from the stop and patdown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Willoughby) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officer testimony about out‑of‑court statements (shooting/drug sales) | Statements were admissible non‑hearsay to show effect on officer—basis for his belief and actions | Testimony functioned as hearsay and the trial court’s contemporaneous limiting instruction was insufficient; jury received mixed signals | Court held statements were non‑hearsay (offered to show effect on officer), contemporaneous and final limiting instructions were adequate; no abuse of discretion |
| Denial of motion to suppress (lawfulness of stop and scope of patdown) | Traffic stop lawful based on observed infractions; officer reasonably suspected defendant might be armed given furtive movement, prior intelligence, and defendant’s history—patdown justified | Stop was pretextual and officer focused on passenger; movement was insufficient to justify a weapons frisk and prior info was unverified hearsay | Court affirmed: stop lawful (motor vehicle violations); patdown reasonable under totality of circumstances and justified by reasonable suspicion defendant was armed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 293 Conn. 327 (Conn. 2009) (standard of review for admission of evidence and hearsay issues)
- State v. Esposito, 223 Conn. 299 (Conn. 1992) (out‑of‑court statements not hearsay when offered for effect on the listener)
- State v. Crafts, 226 Conn. 237 (Conn. 1993) (definition of hearsay: offered to prove truth of matter asserted)
- Dinan v. Marchand, 279 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2006) (statements admissible to show effect on listener)
- William C. v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 185 (Conn. App. 2011) (contemporaneous limiting instruction not required)
- State v. Cyrus, 297 Conn. 829 (Conn. 2010) (Terry stop standard: reasonable and articulable suspicion)
- State v. Jones, 113 Conn. App. 250 (Conn. App. 2009) (officer may stop vehicle for traffic infraction)
- State v. Tuck, 90 Conn. App. 872 (Conn. App. 2005) (furtive movement can support reasonable suspicion for patdown)
- State v. Starks, 94 Conn. App. 325 (Conn. App. 2006) (totality of circumstances for frisk; prior arrests may be considered)
- State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (Conn. 2010) (furtive movement toward console supported protective search)
- State v. Burroughs, 288 Conn. 836 (Conn. 2008) (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to constitutionality of stop)
- State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412 (Conn. 1986) (distinguishing furtive movements in probable cause analysis)
- State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98 (Conn. 1988) (officer may direct occupant to exit vehicle after lawful stop)