White v. Commissioner of Correction
145 Conn. App. 834
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Robert A. White, Jr. was tried for two counts of first‑degree sexual assault after the victim testified to forcible sexual acts; White admitted sex but claimed consent. The jury convicted and the court imposed a lengthy prison sentence.
- Before trial White attempted a nolo contendere plea to one count for an agreed sentence but withdrew the plea, insisting on his innocence and electing trial; his attorney was Lawrence Hopkins.
- White later filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel across five broad categories: (1) failing to advise/obtain an Alford plea; (2) failing to object to or strike certain testimony (medical history, alleged expert lay testimony, and witness credibility statements); (3) failing to request a limiting jury instruction on prior‑misconduct evidence; (4) failing to object to prosecutorial closing argument; and (5) failing to advise/present mitigation at sentencing.
- The habeas court credited Hopkins’ testimony in multiple respects and found White failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland v. Washington; the Appellate Court affirmed.
- The opinion analyzes whether the alleged omissions were tactical, whether contested evidence was admissible or at least strategically advantageous, and whether any errors created a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | Hopkins/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to advise/secure Alford plea | White: counsel didn’t explain or obtain an Alford plea; he would have accepted it and preserved an "aura of innocence" while getting the plea sentence | Hopkins: he negotiated a nolo contendere, advised White; White insisted he was not guilty and therefore could not have made the admissions required for an Alford plea; tactical decision | Affirmed: no deficient performance or prejudice; White’s courtroom protestations made an Alford plea impossible |
| 2. Failure to object to medical‑history testimony | White: medical history unduly prejudicial and not sufficiently probative (sympathy) | Hopkins: testimony was highly relevant to consent and also aided defense in showing equivocal physical findings; no reasonable basis to exclude | Affirmed: evidence was relevant; failure to object not deficient; no prejudice |
| 3. Failure to object to lay witnesses’ "expert" opinions and jury qualification of doctors | White: physicians/lay testimony invaded jury’s role and were improper experts | Hopkins: testimony was equivocal and helped defense; objecting would have undermined cross‑examination strategy | Affirmed: testimony analogous to permissible expert evidence (Whitley); tactical nonobjection reasonable; no prejudice |
| 4. Failure to object to testimony on victim’s truthfulness | White: expert testimony on victim credibility was inadmissible | Hopkins: did not elicit the testimony; cross‑examination strategy aimed to show speculation and thereby neutralize it | Affirmed: although inadmissible, Hopkins’ tactic to expose speculation was reasonable; not deficient; no prejudice |
| 5. Failure to request limiting instruction on alleged prior misconduct statements | White: statements about sexual compulsion were prior‑misconduct evidence and needed a limiting instruction | Hopkins/State: statements were admissible as party admissions on consent issue; a limiting instruction would have been of little value | Affirmed: Hopkins’ choice to argue irrelevancy in closing rather than request instruction was reasonable; no prejudice |
| 6. Failure to object to prosecutorial closing (improper vouching/emotional appeals) | White: prosecutor vouched, appealed to emotion; Hopkins should have objected | Hopkins: remarks were within permissible argumentative scope and reasonable inferences from evidence; objections discretionary | Affirmed: not so egregious as to require objection; counsel’s discretion inclosing strategy upheld |
| 7. Sentencing: failure to present/advise mitigation | White: Hopkins did not meet/prepresent medical/psychiatric mitigation or advise on allocution, causing harsher sentence | Hopkins: some mitigation was presented; he would have advised reserve allocution; habeas court credited that psychiatric history was not mitigating | Affirmed: White failed to show prejudice; no reasonable probability of reduced sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (defendant may plead guilty while asserting innocence where evidence of guilt is strong)
- State v. Palmer, 196 Conn. 157 (1985) (Alford pleas described as judicial oxymoron; evidentiary consequences)
- State v. Godek, 182 Conn. 353 (1980) (nolo contendere pleas and discretionary factual‑basis requirement)
- State v. Whitley, 53 Conn. App. 414 (1999) (expert testimony that absence of physical injury can be consistent with sexual assault admissible to aid jury)
- State v. Apostle, 8 Conn. App. 216 (1986) (expert improperly opining on ultimate issue of consent when relying on victim’s representations)
- Toccaline v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 792 (2004) (deference to trial tactics in assessing counsel’s failure to object to expert credibility testimony)