STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. HAROLD PATTERSON
(SC 20349)
Supreme Court of Connecticut
August 9, 2022
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D‘Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
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.
Syllabus
Convicted of two counts of the crime of murder, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant was a passenger in a car when the driver stopped to speak to two women on a street in the city of Hartford. When one of two men who had been walking behind the women told the occupants of the car to leave, the defendant shot both men. The police recovered spent cartridge casings at the scene, and, prior to trial, the state filed a motion seeking to present evidence of uncharged misconduct relating to two prior shootings on two different streets in Hartford in support of its claim that the defendant had possessed the means to cause the victims’ deaths. Defense counsel objected, claiming that such evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. The court ruled that the uncharged misconduct evidence was admissible to prove means and identity, but it limited the scope of the evidence to facts that connected the firearm used in the prior shootings to the firearm used during the shooting of the two victims. At trial, the state presented the testimony of S and D, the officers who collected the fired bullets and cartridge casings following the prior shootings that formed the basis of the uncharged misconduct evidence, the testimony of L and W, friends of the defendant who identified him as the shooter in those prior shootings, and J, a firearms expert who testified, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the cartridge casings from the prior shootings and the murders of the victims were all from the same firearm. The court instructed the jury five times during the trial that the uncharged misconduct evidence was being admitted for the limited purposes of establishing that the defendant had the means to murder the victims and establishing the identity of the shooter of the victims. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly had admitted the evidence of uncharged misconduct because J‘s testimony was not relevant or material to identity, insofar as J‘s methodology was not scientifically reliable, and because the prejudicial effect of the prior misconduct evidence outweighed its probative value. Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of uncharged misconduct tying the firearm used in the prior shootings to the firearm used in the murders of the victims to prove that the defendant was the individual who shot the victims: the defendant‘s claim challenging the relevance of J‘s testimony in light of its lack of scientific reliability was unavailing, as the defendant‘s failure to request a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter (241 Conn. 57) deprived the trial court of the opportunity to assess J‘s methodology and, thus, the reliability of J‘s testimony, the defendant‘s claim on appeal represented an inappropriate effort to avoid the requirement that a challenge to scientific methodology must be raised at trial during a Porter hearing, and, in view of the broad definition of relevance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting J‘s ballistics evidence tying the prior shootings to the shooting of the victims to prove the identity of the shooter; moreover, any prejudicial effect from the uncharged misconduct evidence was outweighed by its probative value, as the facts of the prior shootings, which were clearly probative of means and identity, were less severe than the facts of the shooting of the victims, and the court limited the extent of the testimony of S and D to their response to the prior shootings and their collection of projectiles at the scene of those shootings, and the testimony of L and W to their witnessing of the defendant shoot a firearm at those locations, so as to ensure that the relevant facts were shorn of prejudicial and irrelevant detail and that the jury was not distracted by matters that were not pertinent to the charges; furthermore, the prior misconduct evidence was not merely cumulative of other evidence but highly probative, as it was the only evidence connecting the defendant directly to the firearm used to shoot the victims, and L‘s and W‘s testimony was critical to establishing the shooter‘s identity; in addition, the fact that the prior shootings occurred less than three months before the shooting of the victims contributed to the probative value of the uncharged misconduct evidence, and the court instructed the jury no fewer than five times throughout the course of the trial regarding the limited purpose for which the uncharged misconduct evidence could be used.
Argued March 24-officially released August 9, 2022
Procedural History
Substitute information charging the defendant with two counts of the crime of murder, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, D‘Addabbo, J., granted in part the defendant‘s motion to preclude certain evidence; thereafter, the case was tried to the jury before Graham, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Robert L. O‘Brien, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Christopher Y. Duby, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state‘s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese L. Walcott, state‘s attorney, and David L. Zagaja and John F. Fahey, supervisory assistant state‘s attorneys, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. Early in the morning on August 25, 2008, the defendant and two friends, Willie Walker and Mark Mitchell, were driving in a white Nissan Maxima on Edwards Street in Hartford. Mitchell was driving, with the defendant in the front passenger seat and Walker sitting behind the defendant. The defendant and his friends saw two women walking on the street with two men trailing behind the women. Mitchell then pulled over to speak to the women. One of the men then walked up to the passenger window of the car and told the defendant and his friends to “get the fuck out of here.” The defendant replied, “what you mean get the fuck out of here,” pulled out a gun, and fired at the men. Mitchell immediately drove away and brought the defendant home.
At approximately 3:15 a.m., Hartford police responded to an emergency call reporting the shooting. Officers who arrived found the bodies of two victims, Carlos Ortiz and Lamar Gresham. Detective Argeo Diaz processed the scene and seized five spent nine millimeter cartridge casings and a copper bullet jacket. Diaz attended the victims’ autopsies, where he took possession of a bullet fragment removed from the leg of one of the victims, a bullet removed from the same victim‘s arm, and a bullet removed from the second victim‘s chest. Both victims died of gunshot wounds to the chest, lung, and heart. The case went cold for a number of years until a new lead was brought to the attention of detectives with the cold case unit of the Division of Criminal Justice. The defendant was arrested and charged with the crimes in 2016.
Prior to trial, the state filed a motion seeking to present evidence of two prior shootings in Hartford. The state sought to admit evidence of a June 5, 2008 shooting on Acton Street, which resulted in the death of Raymond Hite, as well as evidence of a June 16, 2008 shooting on Mather Street, which resulted in bullets striking a building and a vehicle. Eyewitnesses from each shooting identified the defendant as the shooter, and an analysis of the casings collected from each shooting
Defense counsel timely objected to the state‘s motion, arguing that the trial court should preclude evidence of the uncharged misconduct. Specifically, counsel argued that the prior incidents “are not relevant or material to the issues of intent or means to the case at bar,” that “the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice,” and that “admission of the evidence would be unduly cumulative, confusing and time-consuming, and would create distracting side issues that will complicate the main issues in the case at hand.” Relying on State v. Raynor, 181 Conn. App. 760, 189 A.3d 652 (2018), rev‘d, State v. Raynor, 337 Conn. 527, 254 A.3d 874 (2020), the defendant argued that, “[i]n light of recent research on the validity of [ballistics] science, it is no longer appropriate to make absolute, unquestioned statements about what the ballistics findings were,” and, therefore, admitting evidence of the prior shootings would be improper.
The trial court, D‘Addabbo, J., heard oral arguments and issued a preliminary ruling allowing evidence of both prior shootings. The court ruled that the evidence was admissible to prove means and identity but inadmissible to prove intent. The court further limited the scope of the evidence of both shootings to facts “tying the gun to the case at hand.” As to the Acton Street shooting, the court precluded testimony that the defendant shot and killed Hite. The court similarly limited evidence of the Mather Street shooting to show only “that a witness observed the defendant in possession of the firearm on that date and that he fired the firearm. . . .” The court also ruled that expert testimony that tied the casings from the prior shootings to the casings found at the Edwards Street shooting was admissible contingent on the state‘s introducing other evidence that tied the defendant to the prior shootings. The court stated that it would give limiting instructions to the jury when the state offered the uncharged misconduct evidence and that it would “revisit its ruling at the time of the offer and assess it in light of the evidence admitted and the positions of the part[ies].”
At trial, when it planned to offer evidence of the Mather Street shooting, the state asked the trial court, Graham, J., to issue a final ruling on the uncharged misconduct evidence. Defense counsel objected to the “whole line of inquiry . . . .” The court adopted Judge D‘Addabbo‘s preliminary ruling that evidence of the uncharged misconduct was admissible to prove means and identity, with the same limitations on the scope of the admissible evidence. Further, the court ruled that, until the state tied the casings from the prior shootings to the same gun that ejected the casings found on Edwards Street, the purpose of the evidence would be limited to proving means.
Prior to the state‘s offer of evidence of the Mather Street shooting, the trial court
As to the Mather Street shooting, the state offered the testimony of Officer Brian Sulliman and Stephon Long, a friend of the defendant. Sulliman testified that, on June 16, 2008, at about 2:50 a.m., he responded to an emergency call regarding gunshots fired at a multiunit building on the corner of Mather and Brook Streets. From the scene, Sulliman collected one fired bullet from inside of a car parked in front of the building, one fired bullet from a bedroom in one of the units, and seven spent nine millimeter shell casings from outside of the building. Long testified that, on June 16, 2008, he drove the defendant‘s Dodge Durango to a building located on the corner of Mather and Brook Streets, where the defendant instructed him to stop. Long saw the defendant fire two or three gunshots at the building. Long believed that the gun was a semiautomatic but could not describe a specific model or the color of the gun. Immediately after Long testified, the trial court again instructed the jury that the evidence “was admitted solely to the extent it bears [on] the [defendant‘s] having [had] the means to commit the crimes on trial before you.”
As to the Acton Street shooting, the state offered the testimony of Diaz and Walker. Diaz testified that, on June 5, 2008, he responded to an emergency call on Acton Street, where he located and seized two fired bullets, a copper bullet jacket, and three spent nine millimeter shell casings. Walker testified that, on June 5, 2008, he drove the defendant‘s Dodge Durango to Acton Street, where the defendant exited the vehicle and fired a gun. Walker did not know what type of gun the defendant fired but remembered that it was dark in color. Immediately after Walker‘s testimony, the trial court instructed the jury a third time that the evidence pertaining to the Acton Street shooting was “admitted solely to the extent it bears [on the defendant‘s] having [had] the means to commit the crimes on trial before you.”
Edward Jachimowicz, the state‘s firearms expert, testified regarding the connection between the bullet casings found at all three shootings. Jachimowicz testified that, based on a microscopic examination and comparison, he concluded that all of the shell casings, bullets, and bullet fragments found at the Edwards Street shooting, where the victims in the present case were found, had been fired from the same semiautomatic weapon. Jachimowicz testified that he entered the shell casings into the NIBIN system,3 which showed a suspected
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts, and the court sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms of fifty years of imprisonment on each count for a total effective sentence of 100 years.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct. Specifically, he argues that (1) Jachimowicz’ expert testimony was not relevant or material to identity, and (2) the probative value of the evidence was “vastly” outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The state
“[A]s a general rule, evidence of prior misconduct is inadmissible to prove that a criminal defendant is guilty of the crime of which the defendant is accused. . . . Such evidence cannot be used to suggest that the defendant has a bad character or a propensity for criminal behavior.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Raynor, 337 Conn. 527, 561, 254 A.3d 874 (2020). This evidence may be admissible, however, for other purposes. “The well established exceptions to the general prohibition against the admission of uncharged miscon-duct are set forth in § 4-5 [c] of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, which provides in relevant part that [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts of a person is admissible . . . to prove intent, identity, malice, motive, common plan or scheme, absence of mistake or accident, knowledge, a system of criminal activity, or an element of the crime, or to corroborate crucial prosecution testimony.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 561-62.
“We have developed a two part test to determine the admissibility of such evidence. First, the evidence must be relevant and material to at least one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions [set forth in
The defendant argues that Jachimowicz’ testimony connecting the Acton Street and Mather Street shootings to the Edwards Street shooting is not “unassailably relevant” to prove identity.6 (Emphasis omitted.) Specifically, he argues that, because Jachimowicz’ methodology was not scientifically reliable, his testimony failed to connect the two prior shootings to the shooting at issue to establish identity, and, thus, the prior shootings were irrelevant. The defendant concedes that whether Jachimowicz should have been able to testify as an expert in this case is not reviewable by this court, as he did not request a hearing at trial pursuant to State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 81-90, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058, 118 S. Ct. 1384, 140 L. Ed. 2d 645 (1998), and acknowledges that a Porter hearing “is the proper way to challenge the admissibility of an expert‘s opinion based on the validity of the methodology underlying that opinion.” Instead, through his relevancy objection to the prior misconduct evidence, the defendant attempts to challenge on appeal Jachimowicz’ testimony connecting the Mather Street and Acton Street shootings to the Edwards Street shooting.7 Specifically,
This court in Porter “followed the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and held that testimony based on scientific evidence should be subjected to a flexible test to determine the reliability of methods used to reach a particular conclusion. . . . A Porter analysis involves a two part inquiry that assesses the reliability and relevance of the witness’ methods. . . . First, the party offering the expert testimony must show that the expert‘s methods for reaching his conclusion are reliable. . . . Second, the proposed scientific testimony must be demonstrably relevant to the facts of the particular case in which it is offered, and not simply be valid in the abstract. . . . Put another way, the proponent of scientific evidence must establish that the specific scientific testimony at issue is, in fact, derived from and based [on] . . . [scientifically reliable] methodology.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97, 124, 156 A.3d 506 (2017).
As this court has made clear, a party‘s failure to request a Porter hearing “results in waiver of that claim and it will not be considered for the first time on appeal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 Conn. 660, 678, 224 A.3d 129 (2020). It is improper for the defense to challenge the scientific methodology underlying an expert witness’ opinion on appeal without a trial court‘s having ruled on the same matter, as a “trial judge . . . [should] serve as a ‘gatekeeper’ and make a preliminary assessment of the validity of scientific testimony . . . .” State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 68. The question of whether evidence “casts sufficient doubt on the reliability of the methodology employed by the . . . expert [witness] . . . must be vested, in the first instance, in the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Raynor, supra, 337 Conn. 542 n.7.8 Because the defendant
Having concluded that it is improper for this court to assess the scientific reliability of Jachimowicz’ testimony for the first time on appeal, we now turn to the general relevance of his testimony. When assessing the relevance of an expert witness’ testimony, “[a] trial court retains broad discretion . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 554. “[S]uch testimony is admissible if the trial court determines that the expert is qualified and that the proffered testimony is relevant and would aid the jury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “Within the law of evidence, relevance is a very broad concept. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is material to the determination of the proceeding more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. . . . Relevant evidence is evidence that has a logical tendency to aid the trier in the determination of an issue. . . . One fact is relevant to another if in the common course of events the existence of one, alone or with other facts, renders the existence of the other either more certain or more probable. . . . Evidence is not rendered inadmissible because it is not conclusive. All that is required is that the evidence tend to support a relevant fact even to a slight degree, [as] long as it is not prejudicial or merely cumulative.” (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Collins, 299 Conn. 567, 587 n.19, 10 A.3d 1005, cert. denied, 565 U.S. 908, 132 S. Ct. 314, 181 L. Ed. 2d 193 (2011).
Given the broad definition of relevance, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the ballistics evidence tying the prior shootings to the Edwards Street shooting to prove the identity of the shooter in this case. Indeed, in Collins, this court surveyed the decisions of a number of federal and state courts and found that a majority of them “rejected challenges . . . to the use of uncharged misconduct evidence in cases wherein the charged offenses were committed using the same gun that the defendant had utilized in prior shootings.” Id., 590.
Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Jachimowicz’ testimony was relevant, we turn to the defendant‘s argument that the prejudicial effect of the evidence
“In determining whether the prejudicial effect of otherwise relevant evidence outweighs its probative value, we consider whether: (1) . . . the facts offered may unduly arouse the [jurors‘] emotions, hostility or sympathy, (2) . . . the proof and answering evidence it provokes may create a side issue that will unduly distract the jury from the main issues, (3) . . . the evidence offered and the counterproof will consume an undue amount of time, and (4) . . . the defendant, having no reasonable ground to anticipate the evidence, is unfairly surprised and unprepared to meet it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 586-87.
We find significant the degree to which the trial court exercised its discretion to limit the extent of the evidence of the prior shootings it admitted. As to the Mather Street shooting, the court permitted Sulliman to testify only that he responded to a shots fired call on the corner of Mather and Brook Streets at about 2:50 a.m., where he collected one fired bullet from inside of a car parked in front of the building, one fired bullet in a bedroom of one of the units, and seven spent nine millimeter shell casings outside of the building. The court did not permit Sulliman to testify whether anyone was in the bedroom or car where the bullets were found, or if anyone was injured in the shooting. Similarly, Long‘s testimony was limited to his having driven the defendant to a building on the corner of Mather and Brook Streets, where he witnessed the defendant fire two or three gunshots at the building. Long did not testify about the motive for the shooting or whether the defendant was shooting at a particular individual. Thus, the court took care to limit the impact of the prior misconduct testimony on the emotions of the jurors.
The court also limited evidence of the Acton Street shooting. Diaz’ testimony was limited to his having responded to a shots fired call and having collected projectiles at the scene. Walker testified that he drove the defendant to Acton Street, where he witnessed the defendant exit the vehicle and fire a gun dark in color. The trial court did not allow Walker to testify
The trial court‘s actions are significant because “the care with which the [trial] court weighed the evidence and devised measures for reducing its prejudicial effect militates against a finding of abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Beavers, 290 Conn. 386, 406, 963 A.2d 956 (2009); see id., 406, 408 (by excluding “most egregious and prejudicial uncharged misconduct,” trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted uncharged misconduct evidence); see also State v. Blango, 103 Conn. App. 100, 111, 927 A.2d 964 (trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting uncharged misconduct evidence because evidence was limited to showing only that defendant displayed gun in separate incidents), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 919, 933 A.2d 721 (2007).
Because of the trial court‘s careful limits on the testimony, the evidence the jury heard about the Acton Street and Mather Street shootings, which was clearly probative of means and identity, was much less severe than the evidence of the Edwards Street murders. This court repeatedly has held that “[t]he prejudicial impact of uncharged misconduct evidence is assessed in light of its relative ‘viciousness’ in comparison with the charged conduct.” State v. Campbell, 328 Conn. 444, 522-23, 180 A.3d 882 (2018). “The rationale behind this proposition is that the jurors’ emotions are already aroused by the more severe crime of murder, for which the defendant is charged, and, thus, a less severe, uncharged crime is unlikely to arouse their emotions beyond that point.” State v. Raynor, supra, 337 Conn. 563. In the present case, the jury heard that the defendant fired only three to four bullets in each of the prior shootings and heard no evidence that individuals were injured or killed. Comparatively, the defendant was charged with shooting and killing two people on Edwards Street. The facts of the two prior shootings are less severe, making it less likely that they aroused the emotions of the jurors. See, e.g., State v. Beavers, supra, 290 Conn. 405 (“prior misconduct evidence admitted involved only the defendant‘s actual, claimed or threatened damage of property for personal gain, as compared to the charged crime in the . . . case, which contemplated [an] intentional killing“); State v. Mooney, 218 Conn. 85, 131, 588 A.2d 145 (seriousness of subsequent crime, larceny, paled in comparison to robbery and felony murder charges for which defendant was standing trial), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 919, 112 S. Ct. 330, 116 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1991).
The defendant also argues that the uncharged misconduct evidence was highly
The defendant nevertheless contends that the present case is analogous to Raynor, in which the defendant was tried and convicted of murder. State v. Raynor, supra, 337 Conn. 529. At trial, the state offered evidence of a subsequent shooting in which the defendant allegedly used the same weapon. See id., 557-58. Specifically, the subsequent shooting and the charged crime in Raynor involved two victims, one male and one female who had been, or currently were, romantically involved and were shot at outside of their own homes at night, with dozens of gunshots having been fired. Id., 563. Unlike the situation in the present case, the subsequent shooting in Raynor was more similar to the charged crime with respect to location and the profile of the victims. Additionally, in Raynor, evidence of the uncharged shooting was introduced through the victim, who testified beyond the facts of the shooting itself. Id., 564. The victim of the uncharged shooting testified in detail about her feelings of fear during the shooting and her efforts to follow up with the police, in addition to facts outside the scope of the shooting that connected her son and the defendant. Id. This court emphasized how the victim‘s testimony greatly prejudiced the defendant. See id. Thus, Raynor is distinguishable from the present case.
“The question of whether the evidence is unduly prejudicial, however, does not turn solely on the relative severity of the uncharged misconduct. Instead, prejudice is assessed on a continuum-on which severity is a factor-but whether that prejudice is undue can only be determined when it is weighed against the probative value of the evidence.” Id., 563. The evidence of the two prior shootings was highly probative in this case. The uncharged misconduct evidence was the only evidence connecting the defendant directly to the firearm used on Edwards Street. Walker‘s and Long‘s testimony tied the defendant to the two prior shootings, and Jachimowicz tied the gun from the prior shootings to the charged crimes. The firearm was never recovered in this case, and the state‘s witnesses who were with the defendant on the night of the murder were unable to describe the weapon he used.12 The uncharged misconduct
Finally, it is significant that the trial court instructed the jury no fewer than five times about the limited purpose for which the uncharged misconduct evidence could be used, stating that it was being admitted “solely to the extent it bears [on] the [defendant‘s] having [had] the means to commit the crimes on trial before you.” The court gave that instruction on the following occasions: (1) prior to the state‘s presenting any uncharged misconduct evidence, (2) following Long‘s testimony regarding the Mather Street shooting, (3) following the testimony of Walker regarding the Acton Street shooting, (4) following the direct examination of Jachimowicz, and (5) in its final charge to the jury. As this court has held, limiting instructions “serve to minimize any prejudicial effect that . . . evidence [of prior misconduct] otherwise may have had . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382, 397-98, 844 A.2d 810 (2004).
Considering the manner in which the testimony was limited and the numerous cautionary instructions given to the jury, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the uncharged misconduct evidence because the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.