STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EMMIT SCOTT
AC 38035
Appellate Court of Connecticut
Argued January 5, 2017, and February 4, 2019—officially released July 23, 2019
DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Moll, Js.
Syllabus
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.
***********************************************
- The defendant could not prevail on his claim that he was deprived of his right to due process under the federal and state constitutions when the trial court denied his motion to suppress the out-of-court and subsequent in-court identifications of him by R:
- Even if R‘s identification of the defendant at the arraignment was unnecessarily suggestive, it was sufficiently reliable under the factors set forth in Biggers, as the trial court found, under the first two factors, that R was attentive during the encounter and had ample time to observe the assailant, who had nothing covering his face, that R was face to face with the assailant in a well lit area while the assailant went through R‘s pockets, and that R was next to the car while the defendant rummaged through it, and those findings were supported by the evidence, as the court was entitled to credit R‘s testimony that the assailants were at the car a little more than ten minutes and that the car‘s interior lights illuminated the defendant‘s face as he as rummaged through the car, R had a good view of the assailant for a considerable period of time, and R was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the robbery and consciously tried to record a memory of the passenger side assailant so that he could later retaliate against him; moreover, under the third Biggers factor, R‘s detailed description of the defendant conformed with considerable accuracy to information in the record concerning the defendant‘s physical appearance, as the defendant did not dispute that he had a full beard, consistent with R‘s description of the assailant at the time of the robbery, any difference in appearance between R‘s description of the assailant‘s beard and the appearance of the defendant‘s beard two weeks later at the arraignment did not render R‘s identification of the defendant unreliable, the fourth Biggers factor, which pertained to R‘s level of certainty, strongly favored the reliability of the identification, as R stated that he was 100 percent certain immediately after he identified the defendant at the arraignment, and the fifth Biggers factor, the two week length of time between the crime and the arraignment,
did not undermine the reliability of R‘s identification; furthermore, R‘s failure to identify the defendant in police photographic arrays prior to the arraignment did not undermine the reliability of his identification of the defendant at the arraignment, as a photograph of the defendant in one of the arrays had been outdated, R testified that it was the defendant‘s whole body structure, demeanor and the way he walked that caused him to be 100 percent certain of his identification, the court was not required to credit the testimony of the defendant‘s eyewitness identification expert as to whether R‘s identification was undermined by certain factors and was entitled to afford weight to the factors on which it relied, and because R‘s pretrial identification of the defendant was sufficiently reliable, the court correctly denied the defendant‘s motion to suppress R‘s subsequent in-court identification of him. - The defendant‘s claim that R‘s identifications of him should have been suppressed under
article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution was unavailing: the trial court‘s application of the Biggers framework was harmless, as it was not reasonably possible that the court would have reached a different conclusion under the modified reliability standard adopted in Harris, and the defendant‘s claim to the contrary notwithstanding, the variable of unconscious transference—the mistaken identity of a face seen in one context as a face seen in another context—was not fatal to the trial court‘s application of Biggers, as the factors in Harris were generally comparable to the Biggers factors and were intended to more precisely define the focus of the relevant inquiry; moreover, there was no indication in the record that the trial court declined to consider any portion of the testimony of the defendant‘s eyewitness identification expert because it believed that the evidence was not relevant under Biggers, and the defendant did not identify any evidence that he was prevented from presenting at the suppression hearing or at trial on the ground that it was not relevant under Biggers.
- Even if R‘s identification of the defendant at the arraignment was unnecessarily suggestive, it was sufficiently reliable under the factors set forth in Biggers, as the trial court found, under the first two factors, that R was attentive during the encounter and had ample time to observe the assailant, who had nothing covering his face, that R was face to face with the assailant in a well lit area while the assailant went through R‘s pockets, and that R was next to the car while the defendant rummaged through it, and those findings were supported by the evidence, as the court was entitled to credit R‘s testimony that the assailants were at the car a little more than ten minutes and that the car‘s interior lights illuminated the defendant‘s face as he as rummaged through the car, R had a good view of the assailant for a considerable period of time, and R was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the robbery and consciously tried to record a memory of the passenger side assailant so that he could later retaliate against him; moreover, under the third Biggers factor, R‘s detailed description of the defendant conformed with considerable accuracy to information in the record concerning the defendant‘s physical appearance, as the defendant did not dispute that he had a full beard, consistent with R‘s description of the assailant at the time of the robbery, any difference in appearance between R‘s description of the assailant‘s beard and the appearance of the defendant‘s beard two weeks later at the arraignment did not render R‘s identification of the defendant unreliable, the fourth Biggers factor, which pertained to R‘s level of certainty, strongly favored the reliability of the identification, as R stated that he was 100 percent certain immediately after he identified the defendant at the arraignment, and the fifth Biggers factor, the two week length of time between the crime and the arraignment,
- The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant‘s conviction of robbery as against G:
- The jury could have reasonably inferred that R knew that G had cash and his cell phone in the car prior to the defendant‘s and H‘s search of the vehicle, and that either the defendant, H or both had taken the property: R knew that G kept cash in the car‘s center console, the defendant and H searched the car until one of them said, “bingo, I got it,” and then they exited the car and left, and R concluded that G‘s cash and cell phone were missing after checking the car to see if the defendant and H had taken G‘s cash; moreover, the defendant was not engaged in innocent, ordinary conduct when he approached the car with a gun, asked G and R where the drugs and money were, and struck R with the gun before searching the car, and there was no testimony regarding other possible explanations for the missing money and cell phone.
- Notwithstanding the defendant‘s claim that he could have been convicted of robbery in the first degree only as an accessory, the evidence was sufficient to prove that he acted as a principal, as he and H approached G‘s car at the same time, both had guns, the defendant asked G and R where the drugs and money were, struck R with his gun, and forced G and R to exit the car, and both the defendant and H searched the car and left once G‘s cell phone and cash were found and taken.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant‘s motion to disqualify the trial judge: there was no concern that the trial judge would have felt motivated, in ruling on the defendant‘s motion to suppress, to vindicate his conclusion at H‘s trial with respect to the identification of H, the trial judge was not confronted with the same question in considering the defendant‘s motion to suppress R‘s identification of him that he considered in H‘s motion to suppress, and heard different testimony and considered different evidence at the defendant‘s trial, which included the accuracy of R‘s description of the passenger side assailant and whether the other arraignees at the arraignment were similar in appearance to the defendant, and the judge‘s ruling on the defendant‘s motion to suppress involved considerations that were independent of R‘s credibility; moreover, the trial judge in the defendant‘s case did not make any statement to indicate that he prejudged the ultimate issues on which he was to rule, and his remarks about R at H‘s sentencing did not indicate that he prejudged the issues raised in the defendant‘s motion to suppress or reflect an opinion so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.
Substitute information charging the defendant with two counts of the crime of robbery in the first degree, and with the crimes of murder and felony murder, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where the court, B. Fischer, J., denied the defendant‘s motion to suppress certain evidence; thereafter, the matter was tried to the jury; subsequently, the court, Clifford, J., denied the defendant‘s motion to disqualify the judicial authority; verdict of guilty of two counts of robbery in the first degree; thereafter, the court, B. Fischer, J., rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Laurie N. Feldman, special deputy assistant state‘s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state‘s attorney, Michael Dearington, former state‘s attorney, and Brian K. Sibley, Sr., senior assistant state‘s attorney, for the appellee (state).
ALVORD, J. The defendant, Emmit Scott, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree in violation of
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On July 31, 2012, the victims, Ruben Gonzalez and Jose Rivera, had been working together during the night shift at a warehouse in the town of Newington. When their shift ended at about 2:30 a.m., Gonzalez drove Rivera back to Rivera‘s home located at 49 Atwater Street in the city of New Haven. The victims arrived at Rivera‘s home at about 3 a.m., at which point Gonzalez parked in the driveway. They remained in the car, and Rivera began rolling a blunt of marijuana for Gonzalez. Approximately five minutes later, Rivera noticed three individuals, whom he did not recognize, riding bicycles in the street and passing by his house at least twice. Rivera became concerned and suggested to Gonzalez that they go to his backyard, but Gonzalez told him that he felt comfortable remaining in his vehicle. Moments later, two of the individuals, the defendant and Ernest Harris, approached the car on foot, with the defendant on the passenger side and Harris on the driver‘s side. The third individual remained in the street on a bicycle.2
The defendant and Harris each had a gun. The defendant asked where the drugs and money were and ordered the victims to open their doors. The victims initially refused to exit the car but did so after the defendant struck Rivera on the head with his gun. After the victims exited the vehicle, the defendant searched Rivera and took $10 and Rivera‘s cell phone from his pants pockets. The defendant and Harris then rummaged through the interior of the car for approximately five minutes before finding and taking Gonzalez’ cash and cell phone.3 As the defendant and Harris left the scene, Gonzalez was shot twice and subsequently died as a result of his injuries.4 The entire incident lasted approximately ten minutes.
Jeffrey King, Jr., an officer with the New Haven Police Department, was dispatched to 49 Atwater Street in response to a call that a person had been shot. Officer King arrived to the scene at approximately 3:30 a.m.5
At approximately 4 a.m., Rivera met with Nicole Natale and David Zaweski, detectives with the New Haven Police Department, and again provided descriptions of the assailants. He described the passenger side assailant as having a “Rick Ross”8 type beard, which had been neatly groomed and was about one to two inches off of his face. The next day, on August 1, 2012, Detective Natale brought Rivera to meet with a sketch artist. Rivera was able to provide the sketch artist with a description of the passenger side assailant, and in that description, noted that the passenger side assailant had a full beard. That same day, Detective Natale presented Rivera with two separate photographic arrays. Neither photographic array included the defendant. Rivera did not identify anyone in the photographic arrays as either the driver‘s side assailant or the passenger side assailant.
During the course of her investigation, Detective Natale received information that an individual with the nickname Semi might have been involved in the July 31, 2012 incident, and later learned that the defendant had the nickname Semi. Thereafter, on August 8, 2012, Detective Natale presented Rivera with a third photographic array,9 which included a photograph of the defendant that had been taken in March, 2011, one and one-half years earlier. Rivera did not make an identification during this photographic array procedure.10
On August 10, 2012, Detective Natale and Detective Zaweski interviewed the defendant.11 The defendant initially denied that he was at 49 Atwater Street on the night of July 31, 2012. Eventually, the defendant admitted that he had been at that location, with Harris and a third individual with the nickname Do.12 He maintained, however, that he had not been there when Gonzalez was shot. Rather, he told the police that, earlier that morning, he had purchased marijuana from Gonzalez from the passenger side of his car. The defendant stated that he, Harris, and Do then rode their bicycles down the street, but that Do and Harris turned around to return toward the direction of 49 Atwater Street. The defendant told the police that he ultimately decided to
Thereafter, the police learned that both the defendant and Harris were due to be arraigned on unrelated charges in New Haven on August 13, 2012. Robert F. Lawlor, an inspector with the state‘s attorney‘s office in the judicial district of New Haven, accompanied Rivera to the courthouse on that day so that Rivera could observe the arraignments and possibly identify the driver‘s side and passenger side assailants. Although Inspector Lawlor knew that the defendant and Harris were to be arraigned, he did not inform Rivera of that fact, and he never made Rivera aware of the defendant‘s name. The defendant and Harris were among fourteen arraignees who were in custody awaiting arraignment. Lawlor and Rivera sat in the front row of the courtroom‘s public gallery, with Lawlor seated six to eight seats away from Rivera. From his vantage point, Rivera watched the defendant, Harris, and twelve other custodial arraignees, all of whom were handcuffed and surrounded by marshals, enter the courtroom single file through the courtroom doors. Rivera recognized the defendant and Harris “[i]nstantly”15 when they walked through the doors. Once he was outside the courtroom, Rivera told Inspector Lawlor that he was “100 [percent certain] that those [were] the guys.”16
A jury trial followed, at the conclusion of which the defendant was found not guilty of murder and felony murder, and guilty of two counts of robbery in the first degree. The court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury‘s verdict and imposed a total effective sentence of forty years of imprisonment, execution suspended after thirty years, followed by five years of probation. This appeal followed.
In connection with this same incident, Harris was tried separately and convicted of one count of felony murder, one count of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree. See State v. Harris, 330 Conn. 91, 191 A.3d 119 (2018). Harris appealed, and, on March 9, 2016, our Supreme Court, pursuant to Practice Book § 65-2, transferred Harris’ appeal from this court to itself.
This court first heard oral argument in the defendant‘s appeal on January 5, 2017. On March 29, 2017, this court issued a stay in the defendant‘s case pending the final
I
The defendant first claims that the trial court deprived him of his right to due process under the federal and state constitutions when it denied his motion to suppress the out-of-court and subsequent in-court identification of him by Rivera. Specifically, he argues that the August 13, 2012 arraignment identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and that the resulting identification was not reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Even assuming that the identification process at issue in the present case was unnecessarily suggestive,17 we conclude that Rivera‘s identification of the defendant was sufficiently reliable to satisfy federal due process requirements. Accordingly, for purposes of the federal constitution, the defendant was not entitled to suppression of those identifications. Moreover, we conclude that the trial court‘s failure to apply the state constitutional standard set forth in State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 91, which provides broader protection than the federal constitution with respect to the admissibility of eyewitness identification testimony, was harmless because the court reasonably could not have reached a different conclusion under that more demanding standard.
The following additional facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this claim. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress Rivera‘s identification of him at the arraignment proceeding and any subsequent identification that he might be asked to make of the defendant at trial. On January 14 and 15, 2015, the court held a hearing on the motion. In addition to hearing testimony from Rivera, Inspector Lawlor, Detective Natale and Michael Udvardy, a private investigator, the court heard testimony from Steven Penrod, a psychologist, who was present at the hearing as the defendant‘s expert witness on eyewitness identifications. Dr. Penrod opined that the arraignment identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive. He also testified as to numerous variables that could have affected the accuracy of Rivera‘s identification of the defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the motion in an oral ruling. At trial, Rivera testified and identified the defendant as the passenger side assailant.
In a supplemental memorandum of decision issued
A
The following legal principles govern our analysis of the defendant‘s federal constitutional claim. “In the absence of unduly suggestive procedures conducted by state actors, the potential unreliability of eyewitness identification testimony ordinarily goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and is a question for the jury. . . . A different standard applies when the defendant contends that an in-court identification followed an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure that was conducted by a state actor. In such cases, both the initial identification and the in-court identification may be excluded if the improper procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentifica-
“The test for determining whether the state‘s use of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure violates a defendant‘s federal due process rights derives from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196–97, 93 S. Ct. 375, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113–14, 97 S. Ct. 2243, 53 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1977). As the court explained in Brathwaite, fundamental fairness is the standard underlying due process, and, consequently, reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 100–101. “Thus, 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 totality of the circumstances. . . . Furthermore, [b]ecause the issue of the reliability of an identification involves the constitutional rights of an accused . . . we are obliged to examine the record scrupulously to determine whether the facts found are adequately supported by the evidence and whether the court‘s ultimate inference of reliability was reasonable. . . . Nevertheless, [w]e will reverse the trial court‘s ruling [on evidence] only [when] there is an abuse of discretion or [when] an injustice has occurred . . . and we will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court‘s ruling. . . . Because the inquiry into whether evidence of pretrial identification should be suppressed contemplates a series of [fact bound] determinations, which a trial court is far better equipped than this court to make, we will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to subordinate facts unless the record reveals clear and manifest error. . . . Finally, the burden rests with the defendant to establish both that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and that the resulting identification was unreliable.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 101–102.
Assuming that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive,19 we consider whether the identification was nevertheless admissible. “An identification that is the product of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure will nevertheless be admissible, despite the suggestiveness of the procedure, if the identification is reliable in light of all the relevant circumstances. . . . As mandated in Neil v. Biggers, supra, 409 U.S. 188, and reiterated by the court in Manson v. Brathwaite, supra, 432 U.S. 98, for federal constitutional purposes, we determine whether an identification resulting from an unnecessarily suggestive procedure is reliable under the totality of the circumstances by comparing the corrupting effect of the sug-
With respect to the first two Biggers factors, the trial court found that Rivera had “ample time“—approximately ten minutes—to observe the assailant. Moreover, the court found that Rivera observed the assailant from a “very close” distance, and was face to face with the assailant as he was going through his pockets, and right next to the car while the defendant rummaged through it, in a well lit area. The trial court further found that Rivera was attentive21 during his encounter with the assailant, who had nothing covering his face.22 These findings strongly support the trial court‘s conclusion concerning the reliability of Rivera‘s identification of the defendant as the passenger side assailant, even assuming that the state used a flawed identification procedure. See State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 109.
The defendant, however, challenges the trial court‘s findings as clearly erroneous. In particular, he maintains that Rivera initially told Detective Natale that the incident “happened very quickly,” contrary to the court‘s finding that Rivera had approximately ten minutes to observe the assailant, and that the area was not well illuminated.23 Having carefully reviewed the record, we disagree with the defendant that the trial court‘s findings are unsupported by the evidence.
First, the court‘s finding that Rivera had approximately ten minutes to observe the assailant was supported by Rivera‘s testimony that the assailants had been at the car “a little more than ten minutes.” Moreover, regardless of the configuration of the lights, the trial court reasonably concluded that there was sufficient light in the area such that Rivera had a good view of the assailant for a considerable period of time. See State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 109. In addition to Rivera‘s testimony that there had been a porch light and a streetlight, he testified at trial that the lighting was such that he could see down the street and that he did not have difficulty seeing the assailants’ faces. Further, Officer King, who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident, described the location as being “well lit” and having “high visibility” due to the streetlights. In addition, the trial court credited Rivera‘s testimony that the interior lights in the car illuminated the defendant‘s face as he was rummaging through the car.
With respect to the third Biggers factor, the accuracy of the eyewitness’ description of the offender, the defendant argues that Rivera‘s description of the assailant had been general, rather than specific, and that his description of the assailant‘s facial hair had not been accurate. We disagree. Rivera‘s description of the assailant was both specific and accurate, and included the individual‘s race (African-American), gender (male), approximate age (twenties), approximate body type (medium build), approximate weight (160 pounds), approximate height (five feet, five inches), facial hair style (full beard), and clothing (white hat, black T-shirt). This detailed description conforms with considerable accuracy to the information in the record concerning the defendant‘s physical appearance.25
As we previously have noted, Rivera described the assailant as having a full beard, which he referred to as a “Rick Ross” type beard, which was neatly sculpted and one to two inches off of the assailant‘s face. Rivera acknowledged that, at the time of the arraignment procedure, the defendant‘s beard appeared “scruffy,” or messy, and two to three inches long. On appeal, the defendant argues that “[t]he beard . . . is problematic because [the] defendant did not have anything resembling a Rick Ross beard when Rivera identified him not even two weeks after the shooting. While Rivera claimed that it was [the] defendant‘s beard that connected him to the gunman, he admitted that [the] defendant‘s beard was messy, scraggly and had hair all sticking out—a far cry from the sculpted, groomed Rick Ross beard that was rounded under the chin and one to two inches long.” We are not persuaded by the defendant‘s argument.
The defendant does not dispute that he has a full beard, consistent with Rivera‘s description of the assailant. Moreover, Rivera‘s description was based on how the assailant appeared at the time of the incident, on July 31, 2012. The arraignment procedure did not take place until two weeks later, on August 13, 2012. Given the passage of time, we cannot conclude that Rivera‘s description of the beard, as it appeared on July 31, 2012, was inaccurate.26 Accordingly, we conclude that any difference in appearance between Rivera‘s description of the assailant‘s beard and the appearance of the defen-
The defendant also argues that the court‘s finding that Rivera was able to observe the assailant‘s hairstyle, skin tone, and clothing is clearly erroneous. We disagree. Rivera told Officer King, the responding officer, that the assailant was a black male who had been wearing a white hat and black T-shirt. Moreover, although Rivera could not see the assailant‘s hair because it was under his hat, he was able to observe the assailant‘s facial hair style, and told Detective Natale and Detective Zaweski, whom he met with less than two hours after the incident, that the assailant had a full, neatly groomed “Rick Ross” type beard. The court‘s finding, therefore, is supported by the evidence.
The fourth relevant consideration under Biggers, the level of certainty that Rivera displayed with respect to his identification of the defendant, also strongly favors the state‘s contention that Rivera‘s identification was reliable for purposes of the analysis required under the federal constitution. Rivera demonstrated not just high confidence in his identification, but “100 percent” certainty immediately after identifying the defendant.
With respect to the final Biggers factor, namely, the length of time between the crime and the identification, we find no merit to the defendant‘s contention that the two week period between the date of the crime and Rivera‘s identification of the defendant undermined the reliability of that identification. See State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 112–13.28
The defendant argues that the trial court “failed to take into account numerous factors that weakened the identification.” First, the defendant argues that the identification was unreliable because Rivera failed to choose his photograph in the August 8, 2012 photographic array procedure and that the trial court “ignored this evidence.” In its memorandum of decision, however, the court acknowledged that the defendant‘s photograph was included in the August 8, 2012 array and that Rivera failed to make a positive identification during the procedure. In doing so, the court found that the photograph of the defendant that had been included in the array was “outdated . . . .” This finding is supported by Detective Natale‘s testimony that the photograph of the defendant was not current and that it had been taken in March, 2011, one and one-half years earlier.
Moreover, Rivera testified that he is not the type of person who can look at a photograph and make an identification. He explained that “[with] pictures, you really don‘t see the whole body of the person. It just shows you the face of them, so you really don‘t know if they‘re really chubby, and you don‘t know if they‘re
The defendant also argues that the reliability of Rivera‘s identification of him was undermined by numerous factors, including the “weapon focus” effect and the effect of stress on Rivera‘s ability to observe the assailant, cross-race impairment, unconscious transference, and the weak correlation between a witness’ confidence in his or her identification and the identification‘s accuracy. He argues the trial court failed to consider Dr. Penrod‘s testimony concerning these factors.29
First, in attempting to call into question the propriety of the trial court‘s finding regarding Rivera‘s level of attentiveness, the defendant relies on Dr. Penrod‘s testimony concerning the “weapon focus” effect and the effect of stress on Rivera‘s ability to observe the assailant.30 The “weapon focus” effect is “a phenomenon whereby the reliability of an identification can be diminished by a witness’ focus on a weapon . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 110. At the suppression hearing, Dr. Penrod explained that “the concern about the presence of a weapon at the scene of a crime is that it could attract people‘s attention away from the face of the perpetrator . . . .” With respect to the effect of stress, Dr. Penrod testified that being exposed to some level of physical violence, which includes being “pistol-whipped,” would raise the stress level of an eyewitness, and that high stress conditions reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.
The defendant also argues that cross-race impairment and unconscious transference undermine the reliability of Rivera‘s identification of him, and that the court should not have credited Rivera‘s confidence in his identification. With respect to “cross-race impairment,” Dr. Penrod testified that studies have found “impairments [in identifications] whenever people were identifying somebody of a different race,” and here, where Rivera is Hispanic and the perpetrator is African-American, there is the potential for cross-race impairment. Dr. Penrod also explained that unconscious transference, which is a phenomenon where “people can lose track of the context in which they had seen a face and mistakenly [identify] a face that they‘d seen in one context as a face they‘ve seen in another context,” may have affected Rivera‘s identification in this case, where Rivera viewed a photograph of the defendant in the
First, we note that the court was not required to credit Dr. Penrod‘s testimony, nor was it required to set forth specific findings related to these factors. Moreover, “even though the evidence may have supported factors tending generally to undermine the reliability of the eyewitness identifications, the trial court was not required to afford more weight to those factors here than to the factors upon which it relied.” State v. Day, 171 Conn. App. 784, 822, 158 A.3d 323 (2017), cert. denied, 330 Conn. 924, 194 A.3d 776 (2018).31 Those factors upon which the court relied—Rivera‘s opportunity to view the perpetrator, his degree of attention, the time between the crime and the identification, and his level of certainty—are supported by the record and by law. See id., 823; see also Manson v. Brathwaite, supra, 432 U.S. 114.
Moreover, even if the trial court fully credited Dr. Penrod‘s testimony concerning the weapon focus effect and the effect of stress on Rivera‘s ability to view the assailant, the court reasonably could have concluded that, under the circumstances, these factors did not operate to appreciably impair Rivera‘s ability to focus his attention on the assailant. Although Rivera testified that he had focused on the defendant‘s gun and acknowledged that he was “in panic mode” at the time of the incident, he also testified, as we previously have noted, that he focused on the assailant‘s face. Moreover, Rivera had the opportunity to observe the passenger side assailant over the course of approximately ten minutes, including while the assailant searched his pockets and rummaged through the car, during which time the gun was not pointed at him.
Similarly, even if the trial court fully credited Dr. Penrod‘s testimony concerning witness confidence, the court reasonably could have concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, there was a relationship between Rivera‘s confidence and the accuracy of his identification of the defendant. Although the defendant argues that there “is at best a weak correlation between a witness’ confidence in his or her identification and the identification‘s accuracy“; (internal quotation marks omitted); Dr. Penrod acknowledged that there is a relationship between eyewitness confidence and the identification‘s accuracy under certain circumstances. He testified that “[i]f [confidence is] measured at the time your identification is made before there‘s any possibility of feedback to the witness . . . there
For these reasons, we will not disturb the trial court‘s conclusion that the identification was reliable, for purposes of the federal constitution, under the totality of the circumstances. Consequently, the defendant cannot prevail on his federal due process claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to preclude testimony concerning that identification. See State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 113.
In light of our conclusion that the trial court properly found that Rivera‘s pretrial identification of the defendant was sufficiently reliable to pass muster under the federal constitution, it follows that the trial court also was correct in denying the defendant‘s motion to suppress Rivera‘s subsequent in-court identification. “[W]hen the defendant contends that an in-court identification followed an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure that was conducted by a state actor . . . both the initial identification and the in-court identification may be excluded if the improper procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentification.” State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 420, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2263, 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017). In concluding that Rivera‘s identification of the defendant was reliable, however, we necessarily have rejected the defendant‘s contention that the procedure that produced it created a substantial likelihood of misidentification, such that it would be fundamentally unfair for the state to use it against the defendant. See State v. Harris, 330 Conn. 91 (2018). It follows, therefore, that, because Rivera‘s out-of-court identification of the defendant was reliable, and therefore admissible, that identification, even if the product of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure, cannot be deemed to have so tainted the reliability of Rivera‘s in-court identification as to preclude the state from using it. See id.; see also State v. Dickson, supra, 430–31 (explaining that in-court identification of defendant is admissible when prior out-of-court identification of defendant also is admissible). For that reason, we also reject the defendant‘s challenge to the trial court‘s denial of his motion to suppress Rivera‘s in-court identification of him.
B
We next address the defendant‘s contention that he was entitled to suppression of Rivera‘s out-of-court and in-court identifications under the due process provision of
In Harris, the defendant claimed that if the trial court had applied the proper standard, it would have been precluded from considering Rivera‘s level of confidence and would have been compelled to consider the following factors: the tendency of eyewitnesses to overestimate the duration and quality of their opportunity to view the perpetrator; Rivera‘s lack of sleep and the poor lighting at the scene of the crime; the tendency of fear and stress to impair perception and recall; the two week interval between the crime and the observation; Rivera‘s nonspecific description of the perpetrator‘s facial features; the effect of the presence of a weapon and high levels of stress on the accuracy of the identification; and the fact that Rivera and the defendant were of different races. Id., 135. Our Supreme Court disagreed. Id. The court concluded that, although these factors were not expressly included in the Biggers framework, “the trial court‘s application of the Biggers framework instead of the reliability standard . . . adopted [in Harris] was harmless because it is not reasonably possible that the court would have reached a different conclusion as to the admissibility of Rivera‘s identification under [the] new framework.” Id., 137–38.
The defendant argues that “[t]he facts of this case compel a different result” because in the present case, unlike in Harris, there was a risk of unconscious transference.36 We are not persuaded.
Although the variable of unconscious transference is not expressly included in the Biggers framework, as analyzed in our case, neither were the factors at issue in Harris. The court in Harris determined that “[a]lthough the specific factors that [the defendant‘s eyewitness identification expert] addressed are not expressly included in the Biggers framework, that framework does direct the court to consider the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, and the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 136. The court explained: “[The] general factors [set forth in Biggers] encompass the more specific reliability factors that we
Moreover, Dr. Penrod, at the suppression hearing and at trial, testified as to the possible effect of unconscious transference. At the suppression hearing, after providing the court with a general explanation of unconscious transference, Dr. Penrod testified that, with respect to Rivera‘s identification of the defendant, unconscious transference “[a]bsolutely” may have come into play. At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel argued that unconscious transference affected the reliability of Rivera‘s identification of the defendant. As in Harris, there is no indication in the record that the trial court declined to consider any portion of Dr. Penrod‘s testimony because it believed that the evidence was not relevant under Biggers. See State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 137. Finally, the defendant has not identified any evidence that he was prevented from presenting at the suppression hearing or at trial on the ground that it was not relevant under Biggers. See id.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court‘s application of the Biggers framework, instead of the reliability standard that our Supreme Court adopted in Harris, was harmless because it is not reasonably possible that the court would have reached a different conclusion as to the admissibility of Rivera‘s identification under the new framework.
II
The defendant next claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of robbery as against Gonzalez. Specifically, he argues that there was no evidence that property had been taken from Gonzalez, and even if there were such evidence, there is no evidence that the defendant was the individual who took such property. On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the defendant‘s conviction of robbery in the first degree as against Gonzalez.
The following additional facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this claim. During the victims’ drive from Newington to New Haven, they stopped at a gas station convenience store. Gonzalez handed Rivera cash, which he kept in the car‘s center console, for Rivera to purchase items at the store.37
When the victims were at 49 Atwater Street, after the defendant and Harris approached Gonzalez’ car, the defendant asked the victims where the drugs and money
After Officer King responded to the scene and accompanied Gonzalez to a hospital, Rivera remained at 49 Atwater Street to talk to detectives. As he waited for the detectives to arrive, Rivera searched the car to see what the defendant and Harris took from Gonzalez. He discovered that the defendant and Harris had taken Gonzalez’ cell phone and his cash.
We begin by setting forth the standard of review and legal principles that guide our analysis of this claim. “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and then determine whether from the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trier of fact reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . Although the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense . . . each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be [proven] beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . If it is reasonable and logical for the jury to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the jury is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .
“Moreover, it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct. . . . It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence. . . . In evaluating evidence, the [finder] of fact is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant‘s innocence. . . . The [finder of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bonilla, 317 Conn. 758, 765, 120 A.3d 481 (2015).
“Finally, [a]s we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt . . . nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the [finder of fact], would have resulted in an acquittal. . . . On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask,
The defendant raises two distinct arguments with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction of robbery as against Gonzalez. Both arguments are based on his claim that there was insufficient evidence that he committed a larceny, a necessary element of robbery. Specifically, he argues that (1) there was no evidence that property had been taken from Gonzalez, and (2) even if there were sufficient evidence that property had been taken, there was no evidence that the defendant was the individual who took such property. We address each argument in turn.
A
The defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence that he committed a larceny because there was no evidence that property had been taken from Gonzalez. Although the defendant acknowledges that Rivera took an inventory of Gonzalez’ car and discovered that Gonzalez’ money and cell phone were missing, he argues that “Rivera had no actual knowledge [that] there was money and a cell phone in the car prior to the ‘robbery,’ and he never saw what, if anything, the men took.” We are not persuaded.
Contrary to the defendant‘s claim, the jurors did not have to resort to “mere conjecture or speculation alone.” Rather, the jury could have drawn a reasonable inference that Rivera knew that Gonzalez had cash and his cell phone in his car prior to the defendant‘s and
The defendant nevertheless argues that his case is similar to State v. Adams, 164 Conn. App. 25, 141 A.3d 875 (2016). In Adams, the defendant had been convicted of conspiracy to commit larceny in the sixth degree based on the state’s theory that the defendant stole Beats headphones from a Microsoft store located in the Danbury Fair Mall. Id., 27–28. On appeal, this court concluded that ‘‘the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or his alleged coconspirator committed a larceny’’; id., 34; because ‘‘it was too great an inferential step for the court to take on this evidence to conclude that the defendant or his alleged coconspirator stole the missing headphones from the store.’’ Id., 40.
This court explained: ‘‘[T]he fact finder would have had to infer that the missing headphones actually had been stolen by someone and removed from the store, rather than lost or misplaced within the store or taken into the possession of another customer who had not yet presented them to a sales clerk to be purchased. However, there was insufficient evidence to support such an inference because [the store manager’s] own testimony established that the opposite was true. According to [the store manager], although she believed that the headphones had been stolen, it was possible that another customer was walking around with them at the time their absence from the accessory area was first noticed by another store employee.’’ (Emphasis added.) Id., 38. Moreover, this court emphasized that the defendant in Adams had been engaged in ‘‘innocent, ordinary conduct’’ when he was in the public area of a retail establishment where goods were displayed for sale. Id.
The facts of the present case are wholly distinguishable from those presented in Adams. The defendant had not been engaged in ‘‘innocent, ordinary conduct.’’ To the contrary, he approached Gonzalez’ car shortly after 3:30 a.m., with a gun, asked where the drugs and money were, struck Rivera on the head with his gun, and then searched Gonzalez’ car. Moreover, unlike in Adams, where the store manager had testified that it was possible that another customer was walking around with the headphones at the time they were missing, there had been no testimony in the present case regard-
B
The defendant next argues that, even if there were sufficient evidence that property had been taken, there was no evidence that the defendant was the individual who took such property. Specifically, the defendant argues that the state was limited to proving his criminal liability under
As we determined in part II A of this opinion, there was sufficient evidence presented for the jury to conclude that either the defendant or Harris, or both, had taken Gonzalez’ money and cell phone. There was, undisputedly, no evidence presented at trial as to who, precisely, the defendant or Harris, if not both, had taken these items.
The defendant is correct that, in the present case, he could not have been convicted on the basis of accessorial liability because the jury was not instructed on accessorial liability. The state does not argue otherwise. Rather, the state argues that ‘‘[t]he evidence showed that the defendant and Harris acted in concert as principals in the robbery [and] . . . [that] they were working together as a team of equals.’’ We agree with the state.
The record does not support the defendant’s assertion that he could only have been convicted as an accessory. An accessory is ‘‘[a] person, acting with the mental state required for commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense . . . .’’
III
The defendant lastly claims that the court, Clifford, J., abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion to disqualify Judge Fischer. Specifically, the defendant argues that ‘‘any reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality and whether he was predisposed to believing Rivera’s testimony’’ at the suppression hearing because Judge Fischer presided over Harris’ trial, ruled on Harris’ motion to suppress involving the same identification procedure, and ‘‘indicated his admiration for [Rivera]’’ at Harris’ sentencing. We disagree.
The following additional procedural history is relevant to our resolution of this claim. At Harris’ sentencing, Judge Fischer made the following statements: ‘‘The surviving victim, Jose Rivera, cooperated with law enforcement officials, and he courageously entered into this courtroom and testified to his observations of the robbery and shooting,’’ and, ‘‘I give Jose Rivera so much credit for cooperating with law enforcement and for having the fortitude and courage to come into this court and confront one of the men who committed this violent, senseless act.’’
On December 17, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to disqualify the court, B. Fischer, J., from presiding over his case on the ground that Judge Fischer had presided over Harris’ case. The defendant argued that because he would be making arguments similar to those of Harris in his motion to suppress, ‘‘a reasonable person would question Judge Fischer’s impartiality in the instant matter on the basis of all the circumstances.’’ The defendant submitted a memorandum of law in support of his motion, in which he argued that ‘‘Judge Fischer, in deciding [Harris’] motion to suppress the eyewitness identification, was the fact finder and made numerous findings that will be squarely at issue in the defendant’s case. It is unrealistic to expect Judge Fischer, or any judge, to stray from factual findings made in a prior case, in a subsequent case where the circumstances are substantially similar.’’ On January 5, 2015, the court, Clifford, J., held a hearing on the motion to disqualify Judge Fischer, at the conclusion of which it denied the motion.
We begin by setting forth the standard of review and legal principles that guide our analysis of this claim. Rule 2.11 (a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides in relevant part that ‘‘[a] judge shall disqualify himself . . . in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality
‘‘[O]pinions that judges may form as a result of what they learn in earlier proceedings in the same case rarely constitute the type of bias, or appearance of bias, that requires recusal. . . . To do so, an opinion must be so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment. . . . In the absence of unusual circumstances, therefore, equating knowledge or opinions acquired during the course of an adjudication with an appearance of impropriety or bias requiring recusal finds no support in law, ethics or sound policy.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rizzo, 303 Conn. 71, 121, 31 A.3d 1094 (2011), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 836, 133 S. Ct. 133, 184 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2012). ‘‘[C]ourts routinely hold that a judge’s familiarity with a criminal defendant and his or her prior offenses through participation in a separate, earlier trial of the defendant . . . or with his or her current offenses through participation in the trial of a codefendant . . . does not create grounds for disqualification.’’41 (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) Id., 120 n.39.
To support his argument, the defendant points to a variety of other cases, statutes, and rules of practice indicating that, when certain previously decided issues arise for a second time in criminal proceedings, a different judge generally should preside. See, e.g., State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572, 599, 916 A.2d 767 (2007) (‘‘the determination of probable cause required for issuing warrants, although not identical, is sufficiently similar to the determination required for the constitutional probable cause hearing to justify the extension, by
The defendant argues that ‘‘[d]isqualification here is in accord with the policy behind these statutes and rules. There is no practical difference between preventing a judge who issued an arrest warrant from presiding over a probable cause hearing and preventing a judge who ruled on a motion to suppress in another case from ruling on a motion to suppress in a codefendant’s case when the identification occurred at the same time in both cases and the judge has praised the courage of that eyewitness for coming forward.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) We disagree.
In considering the defendant’s motion to suppress Rivera’s identification of him, Judge Fischer was not confronted with the same question that he considered in Harris’ motion to suppress. Although the motions to suppress in both cases involved the same identification procedure, Judge Fischer’s ruling on the motion in the present case specifically addressed Rivera’s identification of the defendant. Thus, in considering the defendant’s motion to suppress, Judge Fischer heard different testimony and considered different evidence. For example, in the present case, Judge Fischer heard testimony from a different expert witness, who testified as to reliability factors unique to this case, such as unconscious transference. See part I of this opinion. Moreover, in his analysis of whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, Judge Fischer considered whether the other arraignees present during the arraignment procedure were similar in appearance to the defendant, looking particularly at the defendant’s height, weight, and age. Similarly, in considering whether Rivera’s identification was reliable, Judge Fischer considered whether Rivera’s description of the passenger side assailant was accurate by comparing Rivera’s description to the defendant’s unique characteristics. Accordingly, unlike the situations cited by the defendant, there is no concern that Judge Fischer would have felt motivated, in ruling on the defendant’s motion
The defendant also argues that his claim ‘‘is not that Judge Fischer should have been disqualified solely because he had previously presided over Harris’ case . . . . Rather, it was the fact that Judge Fischer made remarks praising the courage of Jose Rivera, the state’s key witness, which gave an appearance of partiality because it demonstrated he was predisposed to believe Rivera’s testimony at [the] defendant’s suppression hearing.’’ (Citation omitted.) We are not persuaded.
In support of his argument, the defendant cites to several out-of-state cases, including In re George G., 64 Md. App. 70, 494 A.2d 247 (1985), superseded by statute in part as stated in In re Demetrius J., 321 Md. 468, 476, 583 A.2d 258 (1991), People v. Gibson, 90 Mich. App. 792, 282 N.W.2d 483 (1979), leave to appeal denied, 408 Mich. 868 (1980), and People v. Robinson, 18 Ill. App. 3d 804, 310 N.E.2d 652 (1974).42 In each of those cases, the trial judges presided over the defendants’ respective bench trials and, accordingly, acted as the triers of fact with respect to the determination of the defendants’ guilt or innocence. Before each trial, however, the judges in these cases made statements that indicated they had prejudged the defendant’s guilt. See People v. Gibson, supra, 797 (trial judge commenting on the defendant’s guilt at conclusion of his codefendant’s trial); see also In re George G., supra, 77, 79 (trial judge telling defense counsel ‘‘[y]ou might be able to prove that [the defendant] is innocent,’’ even though ‘‘[i]t is elementary that in a criminal case the state has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused and that the accused need not prove his innocence’’ [emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted]); People v. Robinson, supra, 808 (The trial judge concluded that the defendant was guilty at the conclusion of his codefendant’s trial and stated, before the defendant’s trial, ‘‘I heard the testimony. I came to that conclusion and my statement was correct.’’ [Internal quotation marks omitted.]).
In the present case, unlike in In re George G., Gibson, and Robinson, Judge Fischer did not make any statement to indicate that he prejudged the ultimate issues on which he was to rule with respect to the defendant’s motion to suppress, namely, whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and, if so, whether the identification was nevertheless sufficiently reliable. Even though the defendant claims that ‘‘Judge Fischer made remarks praising the courage of Jose Rivera,’’ which the defendant characterizes as statements regarding Rivera’s credibility,43 these remarks do not indicate that Judge Fischer prejudged the issues raised in the defendant’s motion. As we previously have noted, Judge Fischer’s ruling on the defendant’s motion to suppress involved considerations independent of
Contrary to the defendant’s arguments, Judge Fischer’s statements do not reflect ‘‘an opinion . . . so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rizzo, supra, 303 Conn. 121. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to disqualify Judge Fischer.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.