Westberry v. Commissioner of Correction
169 Conn. App. 721
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- In 2000 Troy Westberry was convicted of murder for shooting Anthony Bennefield; key trial ID testimony came from Jesse Campbell, Joseph Smith, and Dwayne Stewart. Campbell and Stewart identified Westberry; Smith testified he ducked and did not see the shooter. Westberry’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Postconviction, recorded statements and later proffers suggested Campbell and Smith recanted or implicated Lorenza ("Bub"/Mack) as the shooter; other hearsay evidence suggested Mack had motive and was later killed.
- Westberry filed a first habeas petition alleging due process violation and actual innocence based on Campbell’s recantation; the first habeas court denied relief and this court affirmed.
- A second habeas petition relied on Campbell’s and Smith’s recantations, Smith’s federal proffer implicating Mack, and investigator affidavits; at the second habeas trial the court heard recantation testimony and admitted prior statements and some hearsay for limited purposes.
- The habeas court discredited the recantations (Campbell, Smith, Stewart) and Eugene’s hearsay, found no persuasive affirmative evidence of actual innocence, and denied relief on both due process and actual innocence grounds. The Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of perjured testimony (even if state unaware) violated due process | Westberry: conviction rested on perjured testimony by state witnesses (Campbell, Smith); unknowing use of perjury violates due process | Respondent: petitioner failed to show testimony was false; habeas court credibility findings support denial | Court: need not resolve doctrine; petitioner failed to prove perjury — habeas court credibility findings upheld |
| Whether recantations and other evidence establish actual (factual) innocence under Miller | Westberry: recantations and new statements point to Mack as shooter, satisfying clear-and-convincing proof of innocence | Respondent: recantations lack corroboration and are unreliable; no affirmative evidence proving petitioner could not have committed the crime | Court: petitioner failed Miller first prong — no clear-and-convincing affirmative evidence of factual innocence; relief denied |
| Whether recantations/new evidence were newly discovered | Westberry: recantations are the newly discovered evidence; they were unavailable at trial | Respondent: petitioner knew relevant facts at trial; recantations not newly discovered or are unreliable | Court: even assuming new, evidence fails on merits; habeas court reasonably found not newly discovered for purposes of proving innocence |
| Admissibility v. weight of statements against penal interest (Campbell) | Westberry: Campbell’s invocation of Fifth supports inference his trial testimony was false and statements against interest are trustworthy | Respondent: admissibility does not mandate credibility; court may refuse weight absent cross-examination | Held: Court agreed admissibility ≠ weight; habeas court properly discounted Campbell without in-person testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Gould v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 544 (Conn. 2011) (explains Miller standard and treatment of recantations; discusses whether unknowing use of perjured testimony states a due process claim)
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745 (Conn. 1997) (articulates two-prong, clear-and-convincing standard for actual innocence claims)
- Ortega v. Duncan, 333 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2003) (recognizes due-process claim based solely on use of perjured testimony absent state knowledge)
- Skakel v. State, 295 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2010) (statement-against-interest admissibility v. weight; court may decline to credit recantation/admission)
- Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 149 Conn. App. 681 (Conn. App. 2014) (appellate deference to habeas court credibility findings)
- State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688 (Conn. 2016) (appellate standard: credibility and factual findings of trial court not overturned unless clearly erroneous)