128 Conn. App. 478
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- William B. was convicted at trial of multiple sexual offenses including two counts of first degree sexual assault, one count of second degree sexual assault, and two counts of risk of injury to a child.
- On direct appeal, one count of second degree sexual assault was reversed for insufficient evidence; remaining convictions affirmed.
- Petition for habeas corpus filed July 3, 2007, alleging Brady violations and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Habeas court held an evidentiary hearing and issued a 56-page memorandum denying relief; petitioner was granted certification to appeal.
- Department records were alleged to be exculpatory or impeaching but it was uncertain whether the state had them or suppressed them; court conducted in camera review.
- On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, upholding denial of Brady claim and lack of prejudice under Strickland for ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression of department records | William B. alleges the state suppressed exculpatory material. | State contends records were not suppressed or not material. | Brady claim denied; records not material under Brady. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Counsel failed to obtain/use department records, cross-examined inadequately, and advised against testifying. | Counsel's performance within reasonable strategy; no prejudice shown. | No ineffective assistance; Strickland prejudice not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory material)
- State v. Garlington, 122 Conn. App. 345 (Conn. App. 2010) (materiality test governs Brady prejudice)
- State v. Shannon, 212 Conn. 387 (Conn. 1989) (materiality assessed in context of entire record)
- Elsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 144 (Conn. App. 2011) (impeachment evidence is Brady material when it affects credibility)
- Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn. App. 57 (Conn. App. 2010) (strong presumption of reasonable strategy; harsh hindsight avoided)
- Porter v. Commissioner of Correction, 120 Conn. App. 437 (Conn. App. 2010) (trial strategy considerations; appellate deference)
- Ancona v. Commissioner of Correction, 100 Conn. App. 283 (Conn. App. 2007) (prejudice requires more than speculative impact)
- Morant v. Commissioner of Correction, 117 Conn. App. 279 (Conn. App. 2009) (Strickland prejudice standard)