STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DARREN MATTHEW CROSBY
(AC 37523)
DiPentima, C. J., and Elgo and Bear, Js.
Argued November 27, 2017-officially released June 5, 2018
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************************
Convicted of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and larceny in the third degree in connection with a 2008 bank robbery, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (
- The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly denied his motions to dismiss the robbery and larceny charges, which was based on his assertion that the state‘s delay in executing the arrest warrant and extraditing him violated his due process rights and his rights under
§ 54-186 :- The trial court did not err in determining that the stated lodged the detainer in 2013, and not in 2010, as the defendant alleged; the copy of the arrest warrant that was faxed to Massachusetts in 2010 did not establish the intent to lodge a detainer, as the fax did not include language that the warrant was sent for the purpose of lodging a detainer, Massachusetts did not consider the faxed warrant to be a detainer, and the defendant was informed multiple times prior to 2013 that a detainer had not been lodged, and the defendant‘s claim that his rights under
§ 54-186 were violated was unavailing, as the defendant did not analyze his claim that the alleged failure to comply with the requirements of§ 54-186 resulted in a presumption that he was prejudiced, custodial state delays do not automatically require the dismissal of criminal charges in the demanding state, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that any delay was unjustifiable or that he was prejudiced thereby. - The defendant could not prevail on his claim that his rights to due process were violated as a result of the state‘s delay in lodging the detainer, which he claimed had an impact on the memory of eyewitnesses at trial, thereby resulting in substantial prejudice to him, he having failed to demonstrate that the state‘s alleged delay in executing the warrant against him resulted in actual, substantial prejudice to him; a general claim of weakened witness memory was insufficient to establish prejudice, any defect in the memory of the state‘s primary witness prejudiced the state and worked to the defendant‘s advantage, as his cross-examination of her was effective at exposing her memory gaps and she testified on direct examination by the state that she could not recall the events in question, and the prejudice that the defendant alleged pertained to concerns that are generally protected by the applicable statute of limitations.
- The trial court did not err in determining that the stated lodged the detainer in 2013, and not in 2010, as the defendant alleged; the copy of the arrest warrant that was faxed to Massachusetts in 2010 did not establish the intent to lodge a detainer, as the fax did not include language that the warrant was sent for the purpose of lodging a detainer, Massachusetts did not consider the faxed warrant to be a detainer, and the defendant was informed multiple times prior to 2013 that a detainer had not been lodged, and the defendant‘s claim that his rights under
- The defendant‘s claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress two eyewitness identifications of him that were made from a police photographic array was unavailing: the identification procedure that the police used was not unnecessarily suggestive, as the photographs in the array were not too dissimilar from the photograph of the defendant, the defendant was not pictured in apparent prison garb, the absence of the use of a sequential, double-blind photographic array, which was not required in 2009, did not render the identification procedure unnecessarily suggestive, the witnesses were not told that a known suspect was in the array, and neither eyewitness was presented with multiple arrays repeating the suspect‘s photograph; moreover, even if
the photographic array was unduly suggestive, the identifications were reliable under the totality of the circumstances, as they were made close in time to the robbery by witnesses who saw the robber up close in a well lit room and were 100 percent certain that he was the perpetrator when they identified him in the array, and the state‘s primary witness accurately described the defendant in a sworn statement that she had given to the police. - The defendant could not prevail on his claim that he was denied a fair trial because the trial court‘s jury instruction on identification failed to explain certain factors that negatively impact identifications made by witnesses, and excluded instructions necessary to assist the jury in assessing the accuracy of eyewitness perception and credibility: there were minimal differences between the defendant‘s request to charge and the instruction given by the court, which included, in substance, the defendant‘s requested instructions regarding the use of a double-blind identification procedure and the impact of the passage of time on memory, the court did not err in omitting the defendant‘s request for an instruction on unconscious transference, as there was no evidence to establish that unconscious transference could be an issue for the jury to consider and the defendant provided no authority that such an instruction was required, nor did he offer an expert witness to testify at trial about unconscious transference, and the court‘s instructions were neither overbroad nor overgeneralized, but were correct in law, adapted to the issue of eyewitness identification and sufficient to guide the jury, as the court, in its discretion, did not need to tailor its charge to the precise letter of the defendant‘s request.
Procedural History
Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of robbery in the first degree and larceny in the third degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the jury before Mullarkey, J.; thereafter, the court denied the defendant‘s motion to suppress certain evidence; verdict of guilty; subsequently, the court denied the defendant‘s motions to dismiss; judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court; thereafter, the court, Hon. Edward J. Mullarkey, judge trial referee, issued an articulation of its decision. Affirmed.
Alec Gulash, certified legal intern, with whom was James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state‘s attorney, with whom were Elizabeth S. Tanaka, assistant state‘s attorney, and, on the brief, Gail P. Hardy, state‘s attorney, for the appellee (state).
BEAR, J. The defendant, Darren Matthew Crosby, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of
The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. On December 18, 2008, at approximately 1:44 p.m., a robbery took place at the Webster Bank in Enfield. The perpetrator of the robbery was described as a tall black male, clean cut, with an athletic build, and wearing a black hooded type jacket, eyeglasses, a white Red Sox ball cap with a black brim, and black gloves with a Cincinnati style “C” on the backs. Suzanne McVey, a bank teller, acknowledged the man‘s presence while she assisted another customer and told him that she would be with him shortly. When called forward to the teller window, the man approached McVey, mumbled something inaudible, and handed her a note, which stated, “this [is] a robbery, give [me] all [the] fifties and hundreds, and . . . [I have] a gun.” McVey complied with the demand and gave the man cash from her drawer, which later was determined to total $1730. After the man left the bank, McVey informed the bank manager, Kathleen Lee, that she had just been robbed. Lee had been standing behind the teller line, about a foot and one-half from McVey, during the robbery. In accordance with bank procedure, the doors of the bank were locked to prevent the perpetrator from returning, and Lee called 911.
Detective Michael Bailey of the Enfield Police Department arrived at the bank at about 2 p.m., approximately fifteen minutes after the robbery. Lee assisted Bailey in reviewing the bank‘s surveillance footage. Multiple images of the perpetrator were captured by the bank‘s security camera. Detective David Thomas of the Enfield Police Department also assisted with the investigation of the robbery. After arriving at the bank, Thomas took a sworn statement from McVey, in which she described the perpetrator as a “[b]lack male, six feet to six feet,
Detective William Cooper of the Enfield Police Department, who also responded to the bank on the day of the robbery, was assigned as the case officer for the investigation. On February 3, 2009, Cooper went to the bank to present a photographic array to the witnesses to the robbery. McVey and Lee viewed the photographic array separately, and each identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery. An arrest warrant for the defendant, charging him with larceny in the third degree in violation of
On April 21, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an accompanying memorandum of law, asserting, inter alia, that the state‘s unreasonable and unjustifiable delay in executing the arrest warrant violated his rights under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution.3 Also on April 21, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the witnesses’ identifications of him. Evidentiary hearings on the motion to dismiss and motion to suppress took place on April 24 and 25, 2014. On April 28, 2014, the court denied the defendant‘s motion to suppress the witnesses’ identifications. The court did not render a decision on the defendant‘s motion to dismiss prior to trial.
Following a jury trial, on May 5, 2014, the defendant was found guilty of robbery in the first degree in violation of
I
The following additional facts, as set forth in the court‘s memorandum of decision and otherwise contained in the record, and procedural history are relevant to these claims. On February 18, 2009, a warrant was issued for the defendant‘s arrest in connection with the December 18, 2008 robbery. At that time, the defendant remained incarcerated in Massachusetts for multiple bank robberies committed in that state.4 On July 9, 2010, Enfield Police Detective Willie Pedemonti and James Howard, an inspector with the Hartford state‘s attorney‘s office, discussed, through facsimile transmissions, authorization to extradite the defendant from Massachusetts to Connecticut, and such extradition was authorized. Extradition, however, was not pursued at that time.
On September 1, 2010, the Enfield Police Department received a telephone request from “Rafael” of the MCI-Cedar Junction correctional facility at South Walpole in Massachusetts, for the defendant‘s warrant. The telephone call was followed by a facsimile transmission from the MCI-Cedar Junction records department, requesting a copy of the warrant for the defendant‘s arrest “[i]n order to be able to initiate the IAD process.” In response to the request, Stephanie “Dee” Beninato, the records clerk for the Enfield Police Department, faxed a copy of the warrant that same day. It is undisputed that Massachusetts did not treat the faxed warrant as a detainer, and therefore, it did not provide the defendant with IAD forms at that time.
On or about October 13, 2011, in response to an inquiry by the defendant, the Massachusetts Department of Correction advised the defendant that an IAD detainer had not been lodged, and that he should submit a written request to the state to lodge a detainer. On or about December 19, 2011, the defendant sent a “Notice of Whereabouts & Demand for Speedy Trial” to the geographical area number thirteen court in Enfield. Maria Reed-Cook, deputy clerk for that court, advised the defendant in a letter dated December 19, 2011, instead to contact the state‘s attorney‘s office in Hartford. On or about April 30, 2012, the defendant sent a “Notice of Whereabouts and Demand for a Speedy Trial” and accompanying letter to Howard at the Hartford state‘s attorney‘s office, advising him of his location of incarceration and his efforts to have the arrest warrant served, and asserting his right to a speedy trial.5 On May 2, 2012, Howard responded to the defendant
On or about January 28, 2013, the Massachusetts Department of Correction Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center records manager, Jamie Lewis, notified the defendant in a written letter that “[o]ur records . . . indicate that you have been previously advised that in order to begin the IAD process a detainer must be lodged by the requesting state. A detainer has not been lodged. You have previously been advised that you must write to [Connecticut] and request that a detainer be lodged. Once a detainer is received the IAD process may be initiated.” On February 1, 2013, in response to another inquiry from the defendant, Lewis wrote to the defendant to explain that “speedy trial requests are for same state open legal issues. For out of state open detainers IADs are filed. As previously indicated to you, there is no detainer filed therefore IADs do not currently apply . . . .” The defendant then made a written inquiry, dated February 3, 2013, to the geographical area number thirteen court in Enfield. On February 6, 2013, Reed-Cook responded to the defendant, informing him again that “[i]f the warrant to which you refer has not been served on you by an arresting agency, the clerk‘s office is not the appropriate office to contact. [The clerk‘s office] only handles matters after an arrest has been made. You must contact the [Hartford state‘s attorney office], which handles the lodging of detainers.”
On May 22, 2013, Pedemonti sent a letter to Kathy Guenther at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, which stated: “The Enfield Police Department currently holds an active arrest warrant for [the defendant] . . . for Robbery 1st and Larceny 3rd. Both are felonies in the [s]tate of Connecticut. Extradition has been authorized by our State‘s Attorney‘s Office and the Enfield Police Department will extradite.” After receiving the letter, Massachusetts asked the Enfield Police Department to clarify whether Connecticut was lodging a detainer for IAD purposes. On July 23, 2013, the defendant was notified that a detainer had been lodged against him, and he was provided with the necessary IAD forms, which he signed. On August 6, 2013, the Hartford state‘s attorney‘s office received the IAD forms. On November 6, 2013, Enfield police arrested the defendant, and he was transported from Massachusetts to Connecticut.
On April 21, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the pending Connecticut charges. During the April 25, 2014 hearing on the motion to dismiss, Carl J. Sferrazza, the police chief for the Enfield Police
At the April 25, 2014 hearing, Beninato, the records clerk for the Enfield Police Department, testified that when she faxed the arrest warrant to the Massachusetts correctional facility, she was merely responding to the request from Rafael, that she was not responsible for lodging detainers, and that lodging a detainer is not something she would be asked to do as part of her duties as records clerk. She was asked whether she attached anything to the warrant to show that the state was “making a demand for the defendant‘s return to Connecticut,” to which she responded, “no.”
“We initially address the standard of review for a trial court‘s denial of a motion to dismiss. Because a motion to dismiss effectively challenges the jurisdiction of the court, asserting that the state, as a matter of law and fact, cannot state a proper cause of action against the defendant, our review of the court‘s legal conclusions and resulting denial of the defendant‘s motion to dismiss is de novo. . . . Factual findings underlying the court‘s decision, however, will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. . . . The applicable legal standard of review for the denial of a motion to dismiss, therefore, generally turns on whether the appellant seeks to challenge the legal conclusions of the trial court or its factual determinations.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Samuel M., 323 Conn. 785, 794-95, 151 A.3d 815 (2016).
A
We first address the defendant‘s claim that, because the state allegedly lodged a detainer against him on September 1, 2010, but he was not extradited from Massachusetts until 2013, he was entitled to dismissal of the charges against him. Specifically, the defendant contends that his rights were violated when the Massachusetts Department of Correction failed to provide him with the necessary IAD forms after Connecticut
We begin our analysis by setting forth our standard of review and the relevant legal principles governing the defendant‘s claim. “The IAD is a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact the interpretation of which presents a question of federal law. . . . Our standard of review of the [defendant‘s] claim is plenary. We must decide whether the court‘s conclusion is legally and logically correct and find[s] support in the facts that appear in the record.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taylor, 63 Conn. App. 386, 411-12, 776 A.2d 1154, cert. denied, 257 Conn. 907, 777 A.2d 687, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 978, 122 S. Ct. 406, 151 L. Ed. 2d 308 (2001).
“The purpose of the IAD is to establish a cooperative procedure for disposition of charges against a prisoner in one state who is wanted to respond to untried criminal charges in another state. . . . The IAD is activated when the state seeking the prisoner (the receiving state) files written notice that he is wanted to answer charges in that state. . . . This notice, referred to as a detainer, is simply a notification filed with the institution in which the prisoner is serving a sentence, advising that he is wanted to face pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 412.
“After lodging the detainer an appropriate officer of the demanding state may make a written request for temporary custody of the prisoner for the purpose of trying these indictments, informations, or complaints that form the basis of the detainer. . . . Unless the governor of the asylum state disapproves the request for temporary custody within thirty days of its filing, the demanding state shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom [it] has lodged a detainer. . . . Once a detainer has been filed against a prisoner, custodial officials must promptly notify the prisoner of the source and contents of the detainer and of the prisoner‘s right to request a final disposition of the foreign charge;
“The provisions of the [IAD] are activated only when the receiving or charging state lodges with the sending or asylum state a detainer based on a pending indictment, information or complaint.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 501. Accordingly, the state was not required to comply with the provisions of the IAD until it lodged a detainer against the defendant. See United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 361, 98 S. Ct. 1834, 56 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1978)
The defendant argues that the court erred in determining that a detainer was lodged against him in May, 2013. He contends that a detainer instead was lodged against him when the Enfield Police Department faxed a copy of his arrest warrant to Massachusetts on September 1, 2010. We disagree.
A detainer is “a notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence, advising that he is wanted to face pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Milton, 26 Conn. App. 698, 708, 603 A.2d 750, appeal dismissed, 224 Conn. 163, 617 A.2d 460 (1992). “A detainer . . . need not take any particular form; its purpose is to provide written notice to prison authorities . . . that charges are pending against the prisoner. . . . Thus, a letter from a police department to prison officials . . . a letter from the clerk of court to prison officials . . . and a letter from a prosecuting attorney to prison officials . . . have all been held to fall within the IAD definition of a detainer.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 708-709.
In the present case, the court found that the state did not lodge a detainer on September 1, 2010, because “it cannot be ascertained whether [state] officials requested that Massachusetts hold the defendant or notify [the state] when the defendant‘s release was imminent” through the mere sending of the faxed warrant. Importantly, a detainer is initiated by the receiving state (Connecticut), not by the sending state (Massachusetts). See State v. Taylor, supra, 63 Conn. App. 412. Thus, the fact that the Enfield records clerk faxed a copy of the arrest warrant in response to a request for the warrant from Massachusetts does not establish the state‘s intent to lodge a detainer. As the defendant concedes in his principal brief, “the fax sent by the Enfield Police Department did not include language expressly stating that the warrant was being sent for the purpose of lodging a detainer . . . .” In contrast, the May 22, 2013 letter, signed by Pedemonti of the Enfield Police Department, did indicate the state‘s intent to lodge a detainer. It provided, in relevant part: “The Enfield Police Department currently holds an active arrest warrant for [the defendant] . . . for Robbery 1st and Larceny 3rd. Both are felonies in the [s]tate of Connecticut. Extradition has been authorized by our State‘s Attorney‘s Office and the Enfield Police Department will extradite.” (Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, the defendant was informed multiple times prior to May, 2013, by Massachusetts correctional employees that a detainer had not been lodged against him. It was not until July 23, 2013, that he was notified that a detainer had been lodged against him by the state. On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the court did not err in determining that the detainer was lodged against the defendant in May, 2013.
We next consider whether the defendant‘s rights under the IAD were violated. The defendant claims that “Massachusetts, in [its] capacity as [agent] for [the state], violated the IAD through inaction [and that the state], as principal, is liable for this violation.” The defendant contends that Massachusetts’ failure to recognize the state‘s detainer halted the filing procedure, and delayed the triggering of the defendant‘s rights and duties under the IAD. We are not persuaded. As set forth previously in this opinion, the state lodged a detainer against the defendant in May, 2013. Thus, only two months elapsed between the detainer being lodged and the defendant being informed in July, 2013, that the state had lodged a detainer against him. Even if a detainer effectively had been lodged in September, 2010, however, the defendant‘s claim still would fail because he has failed to demonstrate that any delay was unjustifiable or that he was prejudiced by any delay.
“Article III of the IAD governs inmate requests for a prompt disposition of outstanding detainers. The centerpiece of Article III is subsection (a), which states that a prisoner shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer‘s jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information or complaint. . . . Failure to comply with Article III (a) mandates dismissal with prejudice of the underlying charges.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78, 85-86, 554 A.2d 686, cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S. Ct. 3230, 106 L. Ed. 2d 579 (1989). “The remaining provisions of Article III address the custodial state‘s duty ‘promptly’ to inform a prisoner of outstanding detainers;
“Although custodial state delays do not automatically require the dismissal of criminal charges in the demanding state, we would be remiss in our obligation to effectuate the IAD‘s purposes and principles if we were simply to ignore such a violation. Indeed . . . under the IAD, officials of the custodial state act as the agents of the demanding state. . . . When, in somewhat similar circumstances, we sought to enforce a criminal defendant‘s right to have his appeal defended by the state with due diligence . . . we found a useful analogy in the rules that have been developed to protect a defendant‘s constitutional right to a speedy trial. So too [a] defendant‘s right to prompt IAD notification can appropriately be protected by invoking the balancing principles of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972), which determine when a deprivation of speedy trial rights requires dismissal of criminal charges against a defendant. . . . The four factors that form the matrix of a Barker v. Wingo [supra, 530] analysis are: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant‘s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Herring, supra, 210 Conn. 89-90. “We recognize that these factors have no talismanic qualities but rather must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant. . . . The triggering mechanism for our consideration of the Barker factors is the length of the delay that the defendant has experienced. . . . As the tolerable length of delay may vary greatly between cases, our inquiry into the length of the delay is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar circumstances of the case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Roman, 320 Conn. 400, 418-19, 133 A.3d 441 (2016).
On appeal, the defendant fails to analyze his claim pursuant to the Barker factors, and instead argues that “prejudice is presumed for failure to comply with IAD regulations.” As the state asserts, however, the defendant‘s argument conflicts with established case law, which explicitly states that “custodial state delays do not automatically require the dismissal of criminal charges in the demanding state. . . .” State v. Herring, supra, 210 Conn. 89. We agree with the state and, thus, reject the defendant‘s argument that prejudice is presumed by “a delay of this magnitude.” Rather, a claim of prejudice resulting from the delay is properly analyzed pursuant to the four Barker factors.
B
We next address the defendant‘s claim that the court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss because his due process rights were violated by the state‘s “unreasonable and unjustifiable delay” in executing the arrest warrant against him, extraditing him four years after the warrant was issued. The defendant contends that the unjustifiable delay had an impact on the memory of the eyewitnesses, which resulted in actual, substantial prejudice to him. We are not persuaded.
“The role of due process protections with respect to pre-accusation delay has been characterized as a limited one. . . . [T]he Due Process Clause does not permit courts to abort criminal prosecutions simply because they disagree with a prosecutor‘s judgment as to when to seek an indictment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Slater v. Commissioner of Correction, 158 Conn. App. 522, 536, 119 A.3d 1221, cert. denied, 319 Conn. 932, 125 A.3d 206 (2015). “This court need only determine whether the action complained of . . . violates those fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions . . . and which define the community‘s sense of fair play and decency . . . . The due process clause has not replaced the applicable statute of limitations . . . [as] . . . the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. John, 210 Conn. 652, 685, 557 A.2d 93, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 824, 110 S. Ct. 84, 107 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1989); see also Slater v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 536. “In order to establish a due process violation because of pre-accusation delay, the
In the present case, the arrest warrant for the defendant for the December 18, 2008 robbery was issued on February 18, 2009. The defendant was taken into custody and transported to Connecticut from Massachusetts by the Enfield Police Department on November 6, 2013. Although approximately four years and eleven months passed from the date of the robbery to the execution of the arrest warrant, and approximately four years and nine months passed from the date of the arrest warrant to its execution, those periods of time standing alone do not require a finding of a due process violation. See State v. Haynes, 8 Conn. App. 361, 364, 513 A.2d 160 (1986) (“A delay of nearly twenty-one months between the date of the crime and the date of the arrest has been held insufficient to dismiss charges against a defendant, absent a showing of any specific prejudice to the defendant; State v. Aspinall, 6 Conn. App. 546, 549, 506 A.2d 1063 [1986]; as has a delay of more than five years. State v. Littlejohn, [199 Conn. 631, 646, 508 A.2d 1376 (1986)].“). The defendant must establish that the passage of time was wholly unjustifiable and caused him actual, substantial prejudice.8
The defendant claims that the delay resulted in actual, substantial prejudice because “[a]t trial, the state‘s primary witness, McVey, revealed that she had no recollection of the suspect or of her conversations with investigating officers in which she described that suspect. McVey‘s lack of memory deprived defense counsel of the chance to effectively cross-examine [her] regarding her identification.” We note, however, that “[a] claim of general weakening of witnesses’ memories, relying on the simple passage of time, cannot, without a more specific showing, be said to prejudice the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lacks, 58 Conn. App. 412, 420, 755 A.2d 254, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 919, 759 A.2d 1026 (2000); see also State v. Hanna, supra, 19 Conn. App. 278. Furthermore, because McVey was the state‘s primary witness, any defect in her memory prejudiced the state, not the defense. See State v. Morrill, 197 Conn. 507, 528, 498 A.2d 76 (1985). Indeed, “[a]s the time between the commission of the crime and trial lengthens, witnesses may become unavailable or their memories may fade. If the witnesses
Additionally, as the trial court pointed out in its memorandum of decision, the defendant‘s claimed prejudice pertains to concerns generally protected by the applicable statute of limitations.10 We reiterate that “[t]he due process clause has not replaced the applicable statute of limitations . . . [as] . . . the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. John, supra, 210 Conn. 685.
The defendant has not demonstrated that the state‘s alleged delay in executing the warrant against him resulted in actual, substantial prejudice to him.11 See id., 686 (“we cannot find in this record that the defendants have shown, as they must, actual substantial prejudice, such as the death or disappearance of a vital defense witness” [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant‘s motion to dismiss.
II
The defendant next claims that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress and improperly concluded that the witnesses’ identification of him from the suspect photographic array was not the product of an unreliable identification procedure. Specifically, the defendant claims that the photographic array was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable because “(1) the ‘filler’ photographs12 were too dissimilar from the defendant; (2) the defendant was the only individual pictured in apparent prison garb; (3) the array was simultaneous, as opposed to sequential; and (4) the police department did not use a ‘double-blind’ identification procedure.” (Footnote added.) We are not persuaded.
The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. On February 3, 2009, Cooper separately presented to McVey and Lee a photographic array created by Massachusetts State Police Trooper Kevin O‘Toole, which contained eight photographs of males of the same race and with similar features. Prior to presenting the array to each witness, Cooper read the following required warning: “You will be asked to look at a group of photographs. The fact that the photographs are shown to you should not influence your [judgment]. You should not conclude or guess that the photographs
On April 21, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the witnesses’ identification of him on the ground that the photographic array was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable. A hearing on the motion to suppress took place on April 25, 2014. At the hearing, the two witnesses, McVey and Lee, testified. Lee testified that she “was 100 percent certain” of her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery when Cooper presented her with the photographic array on February 3, 2009. Lee also testified that her attention was drawn to the defendant for “two reasons; the first reason was, I didn‘t recognize him as a depositor, and people that don‘t deposit with us are sales opportunities and we really [have] a strong sales culture, so that was one thing; that‘s what I‘m trained to do. And the other reason why he caught my attention was, he looked just like my husband, and I took a second look and that‘s why he caught my attention, those two reasons. . . . My husband wears similar glasses, and he had at the time the same mustache and the same skin tone and a very similar build.” Defense counsel asked Lee whether she saw any significance in the defendant‘s clothing, to which she stated that she did not.
McVey testified at the hearing that she recalled describing some of the defendant‘s features to the police, such as his clothing and his race, but that she could not recall her description of his build or certain facial features. McVey did testify that, at the time of the photographic array, she was “100 percent” certain of her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery. McVey stated that she selected the defendant‘s photograph from the array because “[s]omething just triggered a memory and it was the correct memory. . . . [S]omething about that particular picture just brought the whole thing back.” Similar to Lee, McVey testified that she saw no significance in the defendant‘s clothing.
Following the hearing, on April 28, 2014, the court denied the defendant‘s motion to suppress. Lee and McVey both testified at trial. In response to the defendant‘s motion for an articulation, the court issued a written articulation of its decision on October 4, 2016.
“Our standard of review of a trial court‘s findings and
On appeal, the defendant claims that his due process rights were violated by the admission of the witnesses’ identification of him at trial. “In determining whether identification procedures violate a defendant‘s due process rights, the required inquiry is made on an ad hoc basis and is two-pronged: first, it must be determined whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive; and second, if it is found to have been so, it must be determined whether the identification was nevertheless reliable based on examination of the total-
“In evaluating the [first factor concerning] suggestiveness of a photographic array, a court should look to both the photographs themselves and the manner in which they were presented to the identifying witness. . . . We consider the following nonexhaustive factors in analyzing a photographic array for unnecessary suggestiveness: (1) the degree of likeness shared by the individuals pictured . . . (2) the number of photographs included in the array . . . (3) whether the suspect‘s photograph prominently was displayed or otherwise was highlighted in an impermissible manner . . . (4) whether the eyewitness had been told that the array includes a photograph of a known suspect . . . (5) whether the eyewitness had been presented with multiple arrays in which the photograph of one suspect recurred repeatedly . . . and (6) whether a second eyewitness was present during the presentation of the array. . . . It is important to note, however, that [p]hotographs will often have distinguishing features. The question . . . is not whether the defendant‘s photograph could be distinguished from the other photographs . . . but whether the distinction made it unnecessarily suggestive.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marquez, supra, 291 Conn. 161.
As to the second factor, the court noted that “the number of photographs was the standard of eight photographs. While not presented in a sequential, double-blind manner, these photo boards met the standards in effect on February 3, 2009.” See State v. Marquez, supra, 291 Conn. 164 (“the failure to use a double-blind procedure does not automatically render an identification suspect, particularly when, as in the present case, there is no evidence that the detectives conducting the procedure influenced the witnesses in any discernible way prior to their making the identification“).
As to the third factor, the court noted that “Cooper was questioned extensively on the procedures he followed, particularly with regard to the composition and timing of the array. Th[e] robbery [at issue in the present case] occurred on December 18, 2008. The defendant was arrested in Massachusetts for other robberies on January 25, 2009. The array was shown to the two eyewitnesses on February 3, 2009. Extensive examination of [Cooper] in several areas of his investigation included possible third-party suspects, composition of the array and witnesses he did not interview. He testified that he relied more on the bank‘s surveillance photos than on witness descriptions, did not use Connecticut driver‘s license photos because they cannot be sorted by physical characteristics . . . and did not use Springfield Police Department photos because [they] did not fit [in] Enfield Police Department folders. . . . Instead, [Cooper] used an array composed by . . . O‘Toole of
As to the fourth factor, the court noted that “the witnesses were not told that a known suspect was in the array. In fact, each was told the opposite and given the approved warnings to that effect . . . . Lee . . . testified at the motion to suppress [hearing] that she was behind the teller line when she first saw the perpetrator from a distance, whom she did not recognize as a depositor but at first took to be her husband until apparently dissuaded by the team logo on his [baseball] cap. She further testified that [Cooper] showed her the array when only they were in her office and after he had given and she signed [the standard warning]. The only difference between the picture and the robber was an absence of eyeglasses. [Lee testified that she] was ‘100 [percent]’ sure of her identification. . . . McVey testified at the hearing that she had been trained to hand over the money and to remember the perpetrator. She was shown a copy of the same photo array [as Lee] and selected the defendant. While [McVey] did not recall her level of certainty at the time of the identification, at the hearing she was ‘100 [percent]’ sure. . . . McVey was also given the standard warning . . . . She testified that as to photo number three in the array, ‘something just triggered a correct memory.‘”
As to the fifth factor, “neither eyewitness was presented with multiple arrays repeating the suspect‘s photo. Similarly, the sixth factor was not violated, as each witness was shown the array in the presence of . . . Cooper only in attendance.” Having concluded that the identification procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive, the court did not reach the second prong of reliability but concluded that the month and one-half delay “goes to the weight of the identification, not the fairness of the procedure, and would not change this court‘s opinion even if the [reliability based] totality of [the] circumstances prong were reached.”
On the basis of our review of the record, we find ample support for the court‘s findings. We cannot conclude that the photographs in the array were too dissimilar. During the April 25, 2014 motion to suppress hearing, both Lee and McVey testified that they were “100 percent” certain of their photographic array identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the rob-
bery, and neither testified that they considered the photographs to be dissimilar. The photographic array was admitted as an exhibit, and the photographs in the array depict similarly aged males of the same race with brown eyes, all posed in front of a solid color background.
We are not persuaded by the defendant‘s claim that, at trial, McVey found every photograph aside from the defendant‘s “to be dissimilar from her recollection of the suspect either because of age, face shape and/or skin color.” McVey did not testify that she found the photographs to be dissimilar. Instead, consistent with her testimony on direct examination, McVey testified on cross-examination that she selected the defendant‘s photograph because of his “eyes.”13 She identified him in the array because “[h]is eyes were what determined it for me.” Although McVey agreed with defense counsel that there were differences among the photographs, at no point did she testify, nor was she asked to comment on, whether she found the photographs too dissimilar. Importantly, “[p]hotographs will often have distinguishing features. The question . . . is not whether the defendant‘s photograph could be distinguished from the other photographs . . . but whether the distinction made it unnecessarily suggestive.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marquez, supra, 291 Conn. 161.
We also cannot conclude that the court erred in determining that the defendant was not pictured in apparent prison garb. The photograph of the defendant in the array depicts him wearing a tan v-neck shirt that is not bright in color or imprinted with any insignia. Both Lee and McVey testified at the motion to suppress hearing that they did not see any significance in the defendant‘s shirt.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by the defendant‘s argument that the absence of a sequential, double-blind photographic array rendered the identification procedure unnecessarily suggestive.14 As the defendant concedes in his principal brief, “Cooper was not required by statute to utilize the double-blind, sequential procedure in 2010,” but the defendant nevertheless argues that “studies were already out and ongoing at that time, which indicated that these procedures were the best practices for law enforcement.” The defendant contends that “[t]he identification methods that Cooper used . . . put [him] in a position to purposefully or inadvertently provide confirmatory feedback that could have influenced the witnesses’ confidence in their identifications,” and that “[t]his could have been avoided by using a sequential array [and] . . . by sending another officer to the bank.”
Although we recognize that a sequential, double-blind procedure now is mandated pursuant to
Even if we assume, arguendo, that the photographic array procedure was unduly suggestive, the identification nevertheless would be reliable on the basis of the totality of the circumstances. See State v. Dickson, supra, 322 Conn. 421 (“[i]f the court finds that there was an unduly suggestive procedure, the court goes on to address the second reliability prong, under which the corruptive effect of the suggestive procedure is weighed against certain factors, such as the opportunity of the [eyewitness] to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the [eyewitness‘] degree of attention, the accuracy of [the eyewitness‘] prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the [identification] and the time between the crime and the [identification]” [internal quotation marks omitted]). As the defendant concedes, “McVey and Lee saw the robber up close, and in a well lit room.” Additionally, McVey accurately described the defendant in her sworn statement to the police, and her description matched the depiction of the perpetrator in the bank surveillance photographs. Lee and McVey both testified that they were 100 percent certain at the time of the identification that the defendant was the perpetrator. The identification in February, 2009, was made close in time to the December, 2008 robbery. Thus, even if there was an unduly suggestive procedure, which we conclude there was not, the defendant‘s claim would fail under the
III
The defendant claims that “[t]he jury charge on identification . . . failed to provide an in-depth explanation of factors that have a negative impact on witness identification and . . . incorrectly excluded instructions necessary to assist the triers of fact in assessing the accuracy of eyewitness perception and credibility.” Specifically, the defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the jury instructions were incomplete, as several of the factors from State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218, 245, 49 A.3d 705 (2012), that he included in his request to charge were missing or not explained in sufficient depth. We are not persuaded.
The following additional facts and procedural history are relevant to this claim. On April 30, 2014, the defendant filed a request to charge. A charging conference began that same day and continued on the morning of May 1, 2014. Discussion at the conferences centered on the defendant‘s request to charge on eyewitness identification. The jury was instructed on May 1, 2014. Following the instructions, the court asked the parties if they had any exceptions to the charge. The state had none. Defense counsel stated to the trial court that he “appreciate[d] [that] the court gave in substance what I requested” for the jury instructions, and he then went on to clarify that he was not making additional exceptions “other than what we had already argued about yesterday in terms of crafting the identification instructions. . . . I still don‘t mean to abandon any of the . . . arguments that . . . I made . . . yesterday . . . .”
“Our Supreme Court has held that identification instructions are not constitutionally required and [e]ven if [a] court‘s instructions were less informative on the risks of misidentification . . . the issue is at most one of instructional error rather than constitutional error. A new trial would only be warranted, therefore, if the defendant could establish that it was reasonably probable that the jury was misled. . . . The ultimate test of a court‘s instructions is whether, taken as a whole, they fairly and adequately present the case to a jury in such a way that injustice is not done to either party under the established rules of law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Day, supra, 171 Conn. App. 831.
“We review nonconstitutional claims of instructional error under the following standard. While a request to charge that is relevant to the issues in a case and that accurately states the applicable law must be honored, a [trial] court need not tailor its charge to the precise
The defendant claims that the following requested Guilbert factors were omitted or understated in the jury instructions: “there is at best a weak correlation between a witness’ confidence in his or her identification and its accuracy“; State v. Guilbert, supra, 306 Conn. 237; “identifications are likely to be less reliable in the absence of a double-blind, sequential identification procedure“; “witnesses are prone to develop unwarranted confidence in their identifications if they are privy to postevent or postidentification information about the event or the identification“; and “the accuracy of an eyewitness identification may be undermined by unconscious transference, which occurs when a person seen in one context is confused with a person seen in another.” Id., 238-39. To the extent that the defendant suggests that the Guilbert factors are required in the jury instructions, we reject that argument. As an initial matter, Guilbert concerned the admissibility of expert testimony, not a challenge to jury instructions. Although the court in Guilbert did acknowledge the “widespread judicial recognition that eyewitness identifications are potentially unreliable in a variety of ways unknown to the average juror“; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Grant, 154 Conn. App. 293, 311, 112 A.3d 175 (2014), cert. denied, 315 Conn. 928, 109 A.3d 923 (2015); it did not mandate that such factors be included in jury instructions. See footnote 16 of this opinion. In fact, in Guilbert, the court even noted that jury instructions are less effective than expert testimony, stating that “research has revealed that jury instructions that direct jurors in broad terms to exercise caution in evaluating eyewitness identifications are less effective than expert testimony in apprising the jury of the potential unreliability of eyewitness identification testimony.” State v. Guilbert, supra, 306 Conn. 245. The court in the present case expressed its concern that, for the requested instructions to be provided in the charge, an expert, which the defendant did not offer during the trial, would be needed to explain eyewitness identification issues and principles to the jury. It is undisputed that neither party presented expert testimony at trial regarding such eyewitness identification issues and principles.
As to his claim regarding double-blind procedure, the defendant requested the following language: “A law enforcement officer who knows which photo is of the suspect may intentionally or unintentionally convey that knowledge to the witness. That increases the chance that the witness will identify the suspect, even if the suspect is innocent. For that reason, whenever possible, photo arrays should be conducted by an officer who does not know the identity of the suspect. If a police officer who does not know the suspect‘s identity is not available, then the officer should not see the photos as the witness looks at them. In this case, there has been testimony that Detective Cooper knew the identity of the suspect. It is also alleged that Detective Cooper did not compensate for that by conducting a procedure in which he did not see the photographs as the witnesses looked at them.” (Footnote omitted.) The court gave the following instruction: “A law enforcement officer who knows which photo is of the suspect may intentionally or unintentionally convey that knowledge to the witness. . . . In this case, the identification procedure utilized by Detective Cooper involved showing all eight photographs at the same time in the array to each witness. You may consider whether the witness was comparing each photograph in the array to one another or each photograph in the array to her own memory in making an identification.” The jury also was instructed that “[f]eedback occurs when police officers signal to eyewitnesses that they correctly identified the suspect. Feedback may be either verbal or nonverbal. Feedback may reduce doubt and engender or produce a false sense of confidence in a witness.” Thus, the defendant‘s requested instruction, in substance, was given.17
As to the defendant‘s claim regarding unconscious transference, he did not include an instruction on unconscious transference in his request to charge.18 He did, however, ask for the court to include such an instruction at the April 30, 2014 charging conference, and again on May 1, 2014. The court did not include an instruction on unconscious transference. The defendant argues that this was error and that an instruction on unconscious transference was necessary because Lee testified that the defendant looked just like her husband, and there were no experts to point out the potential problems with unconscious transference. As
As to the charge on eyewitness identification, the differences in the defendant‘s request to charge and the jury instruction were minimal.19 The court did not use the following requested language: “You may consider that eyewitnesses are often not able to accurately recall the source of their memories. In other words, their belief that the identification was based on observations at the time of the offense may be wrong. When a witness makes an identification, that witness is expressing an opinion that may be accurate or may be inaccurate. . . . Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest source of wrongful convictions in the United States.” The court gave, in substance, what the defendant requested by including in the instruction similar language to what it omitted from his request, including that “[e]yewitnesses can be truthful but mistaken. The identifications must be analyzed critically. Human memory is not foolproof. . . . [B]e advised that a [witness‘] level of confidence, standing alone, may not be an indication of the reliability of the identification.”
The defendant also requested the following instruction regarding the impact of the passage of time on memory: “Memories fade with time. As a result, delays between the commission of a crime and the time an identification is made can affect the reliability of the identification. In other words, the more time that passes, the greater the possibility that a witness‘s memory of a perpetrator will weaken or be influenced by post-event information.” The court omitted only the last sentence of the request, which, again, was in substance what the defendant requested.
We reiterate that the court, in its discretion, need “not tailor its charge to the precise letter” of the defendant‘s request. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Day, supra, 171 Conn. App. 831. “Significantly, our Supreme Court in Guilbert emphasized that a trial court retains the discretion to decide whether, under the spe
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
The fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution provides in relevant part: “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”
Article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution provides in relevant part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right . . . to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury. . . . No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law . . . .”
“Q. Okay. Now you didn‘t see [the perpetrator‘s] hair, did you?
“A. No, I don‘t recall.
“Q. Did he have a mustache?
“A. I don‘t recall.
“Q. Did he have a beard?
“A. I don‘t recall.
“Q. Now in terms of the description, do you remember giving a description to the police that day?
“A. I don‘t recall.”
At trial, the following examination took place:
“[Defense Counsel]: Now, you knew the individual that had—the perpetrator, the individual who robbed you, had a relatively thin apparent face, correct? Long and narrow?
“[McVey]: I would say it was the eyes.
“[Defense Counsel]: Well, you knew the face was long and narrow, right?
“[McVey]: Okay. Yes.
“[Defense Counsel]: Okay. All right. Let‘s—let‘s look at the array. You said you looked through all the pictures, right?
“[McVey]: Yes.
“[Defense Counsel]: Okay. Showing you what‘s been admitted as state‘s [exhibit] 11. Excuse me while I get my copy. So, there—the person, in number one, his face isn‘t exactly long and narrow, is it?
“[McVey]: No.
“[Defense Counsel]: Okay. And you look at—you looked at all these, you said?
“[McVey]: I did.
“[Defense Counsel]: Okay. Number two, he‘s a little on the young side, right?
“[McVey]: I guess.
“[Defense Counsel]: Okay. Do you remember giving a sort of age description of the person?
“[McVey]: No.
“[Defense Counsel]: Okay. Number three, we‘ve already talked about, right?
“[McVey]: Yes.
“[Defense Counsel]: Number four, he‘s a little too light skin and his face is wrong, right?
“[McVey]: Yes.
“[Defense Counsel]: Okay. And number five, he might be the right complexion, but his face is wrong, too, right?
“[McVey]: Right.
“[Defense Counsel]: Number six, his face is long and narrow, right?
“[McVey]: Correct.
“[Defense Counsel]: But his complexion is a little on the light side from what you saw, right?
“[McVey]: It has nothing to do with the complexion.
“[Defense Counsel]: I understand. But he‘s fairly—
“[McVey]: It was the eyes.
“[Defense Counsel]: I understand that‘s your testimony—
“[McVey]: Uh-huh.
“[Defense Counsel]: —please answer my question.
“[McVey]: Okay.
“[Defense Counsel]: Number seven, again, face is wrong, right?
“[McVey]: Uh-huh.
“[Defense Counsel]: And number eight, again, sort of long and narrow, but, again, a little bit light—more lightly reflected than number three, right?
“[McVey]: Correct.”
“A double-blind photographic identification procedure is one in which the officer conducting [the procedure] has not been involved in the investigation and does not know who the target is.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Patterson, 170 Conn. App. 768, 772 n.1, 156 A.3d 66, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 910, 158 A.3d 320 (2017). Because Cooper knew that the defendant was a suspect when he presented the photographic array to the witnesses, the procedure was not double-blind.
“A sequential photographic identification procedure involve[s] showing the witness the suspect and other fillers on the identification procedure one at a time, rather than the traditional practice of simultaneous presentation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 772 n.2. Because eight photographs were presented to the witnesses simultaneously, the procedure was not sequential.
“Nothing in Guilbert, however, suggests that if the police show the photographs to the witness simultaneously and the procedure is administered by an officer who knows the identity of the suspect, the procedure is unnecessarily suggestive as a matter of law. In ruling that experts in appropriate circumstances should be allowed to testify about issues that may affect the accuracy of identifications, the court was not concerned with the admissibility of identification evidence, but rather with a jury‘s proper exercise of its duty to evaluate the weight to be given to a particular eyewitness’ identification.” (Emphasis added and omitted.) Id.
“Human memory is not foolproof. Research has revealed that human memory is not like a video recording that a witness need only replay to remember what happened. Memory is far more complex. The process of remembering consists of three stages: acquisition—the perception of the original event; retention—the period of time that passes between the event and the eventual recollection of a piece of information; and retrieval—the state during which a person recalls stored information. At each of these stages, memory can be affected by a variety of factors.
“Relying on some of the research that has been done, I will instruct you on specific factors you should consider in this case in determining whether the eyewitness identification evidence is reliable. In evaluating these identifications, you should consider the observations and perceptions on which each identification was based, the witnesses’ ability to make those observations and perceive events, and the circumstances under which the identifications were made. Although nothing may appear more convincing than a witness’ categorical identification of a perpetrator, you must critically analyze such testimony. Such identifications, even if made in good faith, may be mistaken. Therefore, when analyzing such testimony, be advised that a witness’ level of confidence, standing alone, may not be an indication of the reliability of the identification.” (Footnotes omitted.)