State v. Wilson, 209 Conn.App. 779

On Aug. 18, 2014 Corey Washington was shot and killed in New Britain; no eyewitness identified the shooter and no shell casings were recovered at the scene.
Police found a San Antonio Spurs hat in nearby bushes; forensic testing showed a mixed DNA profile that included the defendant among multiple contributors.
Two jailhouse informants testified that the defendant confessed to the shooting; the state’s case relied heavily on that testimony and on evidence tying a Desert Eagle .44 to two subsequent shootings three days later.
Defense theory was investigative inadequacy: police allegedly failed to pursue leads, obtain DNA testing of certain items, or take buccal swabs from several persons seen in the area (e.g., Lockhart, Wooten, Johnson, Baptiste, Sackey).
Defense submitted a written request to charge on investigative inadequacy that differed from the Judicial Branch model instruction; the trial court instead gave the model instruction and defense did not object after the charge was read.
On appeal the court held (following State v. Gomes) that the model instruction could mislead the jury and that, given the relative weakness of the state’s case, the error required reversal and a new trial; the court also ruled admission of the uncharged-misconduct evidence (Desert Eagle incidents and related admissions/pleas) was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s investigative-inadequacy jury instruction deprived defendant of right to present a defense	Instruction was acceptable; defense’s request was different and not required; any error harmless	Model instruction told jurors not to consider adequacy of investigation as it related to guilt, undermining defendant’s theory; defendant preserved the issue via written request	Reversed: model instruction could mislead jurors; defendant preserved claim and, given weaknesses in state’s case, error was harmful — new trial ordered
Whether admission of uncharged misconduct (two subsequent shootings, defendant’s admissions, casing evidence, guilty pleas, and “I like to play with guns” statement) was improper	Evidence was relevant to identity, means, opportunity, operability of gun, and explained lack of casings at homicide scene; probative value outweighed prejudice	Evidence was overly prejudicial, cumulative, and created a distracting ‘‘trial within a trial’’	Affirmed as to admissibility: trial court did not abuse its discretion; probative value high, court limited presentation and gave limiting instructions

State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826 (2021) (model investigative‑inadequacy instruction omitted language required to inform jury it may consider investigation lapses when assessing reasonable doubt)
State v. Collins, 299 Conn. 567 (2011) (defendant may rely on investigative deficiencies to raise reasonable doubt; jury must be able to consider such evidence)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (doctrine of implied waiver when counsel affirmatively accepts jury charge after meaningful opportunity to review)
State v. Johnson, 316 Conn. 45 (2015) (where defendant filed request to charge, ambiguous acceptance of a truncated charge does not necessarily effect waiver)
State v. Paige, 304 Conn. 426 (2012) (preservation via written request may still be abandoned by clear affirmative conduct; ambiguous remarks do not establish waiver)
State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 (1975) (earlier approval of jury instructions recognizing that investigative lapses may be considered in context)
State v. Aviles, 277 Conn. 281 (2006) (standard for reversible instructional error: reasonable possibility jury was misled when constitutional right implicated)
State v. Ramon A. G., 336 Conn. 386 (2020) (Practice Book §42‑16 permits preservation of instructional claims via timely written request to charge)