WILLIAM C. v. Commissioner of Correction
10 A.3d 115
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- William C. was convicted in 2005 of sexual assault in a spousal relationship under § 53a-70b (b).
- J, the petitioner’s then-wife, testified that the assault occurred in the early morning hours of October 3, 2002.
- After J testified, several witnesses testified that J told them about the assault; no contemporaneous limiting instruction was requested by defense counsel.
- The trial court provided a final jury instruction on the limited purposes of constancy of accusation evidence.
- Petitioner sought habeas relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Gannon) for not requesting contemporaneous limiting instructions for six constancy witnesses.
- Habeas court found no prejudice from the lack of contemporaneous instructions and denied certification to appeal; the appellate court reviews de novo whether the petition for certification was abused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion. | William C. argues abuse based on meritorious ineffective assistance claim. | State contends discretion properly exercised; no debatable issues to warrant review. | No abuse; certification denied. |
| Whether trial counsel's failure to request contemporaneous limiting instructions for constancy witnesses deprived William C. of effective assistance. | Gannon failed to request contemporaneous limiting instructions, causing prejudice. | Final jury instruction adequately instructed use of constancy evidence; no prejudice shown. | Defense not prejudiced; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. William C., 103 Conn. App. 508, 930 A.2d 753 (Conn. App. 2007) (affirmation on direct appeal; remand not necessary)
- Lemoine v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 669, 808 A.2d 1194 (Conn. App. 2002) (contemporaneous limiting instruction not required)
- State v. Wallace, 290 Conn. 261, 962 A.2d 781 (Conn. 2009) (jury presumed to follow court's instructions)
- State v. McKenzie-Adams, 281 Conn. 486, 915 A.2d 822 (Conn. 2007) (jury instruction adequacy and use of evidence)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 640 A.2d 601 (Conn. 1994) (two-pronged request for relief standard)
- Earl G. v. Commissioner of Correction, 106 Conn. App. 758, 943 A.2d 1118 (Conn. App. 2008) (plenary review of ineffective-assistance claims)