Thomas v. State, 130 Conn. App. 533

Thomas was arrested July 23, 2003 near 57 Belden Street in Hartford and later convicted by jury on Sept. 22, 2004 of multiple drug offenses; conviction upheld on appeal.
During the Sept. 2004 trial, Detectives Ortiz and Henderson testified about the petitioner’s prior uncharged misconduct to prove knowledge and intent.
After verdict, trial counsel learned Ortiz was under investigation for falsifying search warrant affidavits; Ortiz pleaded guilty Alford to false statement in 2008; Henderson later pleaded nolo contendere to forgery in 2008.
In October 2003, petitioner was arrested again; charges in April 2005, jury selection began but panel was not sworn; state sought to introduce uncharged misconduct evidence; petitioner moved to suppress.
The petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea on April 26, 2005 to appeal from suppression denial; concurrent sentence with July 2003 convictions.
In 2007, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a new trial; amended in 2009 seeking relief on July 2003 convictions and on the October 2003 plea; the court struck count two and denied count one, leading to this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by striking count two	Thomas contends count two presents newly discovered evidence.	State argues no prior trial in Oct. 2003, hence no evidentiary record for comparison under § 52-270.	Court properly struck count two; no trial record for comparison.
Whether the denial of reconsideration/repleading was proper	Thomas argues prejudice from the strike and need to replead.	State preserved the court’s ruling; amendment would be improper given lack of trial in Oct. 2003.	Denial of reconsideration/repleading affirmed.
Whether the court applied the correct standard under Asherman for count one	Thomas contends the fourth prong was misapplied to require likely meet of different verdict.	State contends proper high standard was applied; evidence would not probably yield different result.	Court correctly applied Asherman fourth prong.
Whether the court abused its discretion in denying a new trial for the July 2003 charges	Thomas asserts injustice due to tainted witnesses and discovery of misconduct evidence.	State argues no injustice given full record and credibility issues; im prospect of different verdict unlikely.	No abuse of discretion; petition denied.

Asherman v. State, 202 Conn. 429 (1987) (establishes four-prong test for newly discovered evidence)
Shabazz v. State, 259 Conn. 811 (2002) (guides application of Asherman and evidentiary context)
Adams v. State, 259 Conn. 831 (2002) (explains application of standard for review of Asherman claims)
Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149 (1959) (principle on when new trials warranted for newly discovered evidence)
Dlugokecki v. Vieira, 98 Conn. App. 252 (2006) (veneer of pleading standards in motions to strike)