State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed Luis Diaz's convictions for murder, carrying a pistol without a permit, and criminal possession of a pistol. The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give sua sponte a special credibility instruction concerning three witnesses involved in the criminal justice system. The court declined to exercise its supervisory powers to require such an instruction for all witnesses with a potential interest in testifying for the state, while reaffirming that trial courts have discretion to give cautionary instructions when witness testimony may be particularly unreliable.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing sua sponte to give a special credibility instruction for McIntosh and Jefferson, who testified about events surrounding the crime rather than a jailhouse confession.
2. Even assuming Ortiz qualified as a classic jailhouse informant, the trial court's failure to give the instruction sua sponte was not reversible plain error.
3. The court declined to exercise its supervisory authority to require a special credibility instruction whenever a witness is involved in the criminal justice system or may receive a government benefit.
4. A trial court has discretion to give a cautionary credibility instruction when it reasonably believes a witness may be particularly unreliable because of a special interest in testifying for the state and that motive may not be adequately exposed through cross-examination or argument.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing, sua sponte, to instruct the jury to view with great caution the testimony of three witnesses who had criminal matters or other involvement with the criminal justice system and might receive a government benefit.
2. Whether the Supreme Court of Connecticut should exercise its supervisory authority to require a special credibility instruction whenever a witness is in a position to receive a benefit from the government in exchange for testimony.

Disposition

affirmed