Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction, 165 Conn. App. 355

Petitioner Terrance Stevenson was convicted of murder as an accessory and conspiracy based primarily on eyewitness testimony from Jeffrey Dolphin, who implicated Stevenson after initially withholding his name.
Dolphin gave inconsistent statements about identifying Stevenson; at trial he testified he had been threatened in jail which explained his earlier failure to identify Stevenson in a photo array.
Dolphin testified inconsistently about the date of the alleged threat (variously stating March 6, March 8, or other dates). The State called DOC employee James Barone to show Dolphin and co-defendant Butler were not transported together on March 8, thus impeaching Dolphin’s date testimony.
Petitioner later obtained department administrative records (RT-42, RT-60, transport lists) suggesting Dolphin and Butler were together on other dates and that an RT-42 separation entry had been created after a public defender requested separation—not at the prosecutor’s request.
In a third habeas petition, Stevenson argued (1) the State violated Brady by failing to disclose DOC administrative records and (2) the State failed to correct or disclose Dolphin’s false testimony (Napue/Giglio claim). The habeas court denied relief; petitioner appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady failure to disclose DOC administrative records	DOC RT-42 and transport lists were material, exculpatory, and should have been disclosed because DOC acted as part of the prosecution team	DOC records were created for internal administrative purposes; DOC was not an investigative arm of the prosecution and the prosecutor lacked knowledge of the RT-42	No Brady violation — petitioner failed prong one: DOC was not part of prosecution team and records were not in prosecutor’s possession
Napue/Giglio — failure to correct false testimony	Dolphin gave false or misleading date testimony about threats that could have influenced the jury; State allowed it to stand	State impeached Dolphin at trial via Barone and acknowledged the mistake; the State’s case was strong and jury could weigh credibility	No Napue/Giglio relief — no reasonable likelihood Dolphin’s date error affected verdict given impeachment and strength of State’s case

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (state must correct known false testimony that could affect conviction)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence and agreements affecting witness credibility must be disclosed)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady duty extends to evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (imputation of knowledge to prosecutors depends on whether person acted as an arm of the prosecution)
Demers v. State, 209 Conn. 143 (1988) (State’s disclosure duty extends to investigative agencies but knowledge is not automatically imputed across unrelated offices)
State v. Jordan, 314 Conn. 354 (2014) (applying Napue/Giglio materiality analysis; false testimony requires reversal if it could reasonably affect jury)