State v. Allen, 289 Conn. 550

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed Anthony Allen’s convictions for capital felony, murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted first-degree assault, and conspiracy to commit first-degree assault arising from the shooting death of a fifteen-year-old victim. The court held that the evidence was sufficient, that a letter written by Allen was properly admitted, and that the trial court properly declined to poll the jury under the circumstances. The court also rejected Allen’s constitutional challenge to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for a defendant who was seventeen at the time of the offense.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support Allen's convictions because the jury reasonably could credit eyewitness testimony identifying him as one of the shooters and could reconcile inconsistencies in the witnesses' prior statements and the forensic evidence. Because Allen was charged as an accessory, the state was not required to prove that he, rather than the other shooter, fired the fatal shot.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the letter because it was highly probative of Allen's motive, intent, and steps toward carrying out the shooting, and its probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice.
3. When codefendants are tried together and the jury returns and the court accepts a verdict as to one defendant before continuing deliberations on another defendant's case, the first defendant must request a jury poll before the jury resumes deliberations on the remaining codefendant's case. Allen's request was untimely and ineffective because counsel failed to request the poll when the jury's verdict was accepted, failed to request recall after the state withdrew the sentence-enhancement charge, and did not ensure Allen's presence or establish a waiver of his presence when requesting the poll the next morning.
4. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit imposing life imprisonment without the possibility of release on a defendant who was under eighteen when he committed a capital felony; Roper v. Simmons does not extend its categorical prohibition on juvenile executions to this sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Allen's convictions, including the state's proof that he was involved as an accessory even though the evidence did not establish that he fired the fatal shot.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted Allen's letter to his girlfriend on the ground that its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice.
3. Whether the trial court violated Practice Book § 42-31 by denying Allen's request to poll the jury after the jury's verdict had been accepted and while it continued deliberating on codefendant Amos's case.
4. Whether imposing life imprisonment without the possibility of release on a defendant who was under eighteen when he committed a capital felony violated the Eighth Amendment.

Disposition

affirmed