Argued
October 15, 2018
Procedural
History
Substitute
information charging the defendant with the crime of
manslaughter in the first degree, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of New Britain, where the
court, Alander, J., denied the defendant's
motion to dismiss; thereafter, the matter was tried to the
jury before Keegan, J.; subsequently, the court,
Keegan, J., denied the defendant's motions for
judgment of acquittal; verdict of guilty; thereafter the
court, Keegan, J., denied the defendant's motion
for a new trial and rendered judgment in accordance with the
verdict, from which the defendant appealed to this court.
Affirmed.
Matthew D. Dyer, with whom was Kristen Mostowy, for the
appellant (defendant).
James
A. Killen, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom,
on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and
Paul N. Rotiroti, supervisory assistant state's attorney,
for the appellee (state).
DiPentima, C. J., and Moll and Bishop, Js.
OPINION
BISHOP, J.
The
defendant, Antoine Greene, appeals from the judgment of
conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of
manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1).[1] The defendant claims that the
trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to dismiss after
the court's finding of no probable cause for the
state's initial charge of murder in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-54a, [2] and (2) denying his motions for a
judgment of acquittal and for a new trial on the basis that
the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he
intended to cause serious physical injury to the
victim.[3] We affirm the judgment of conviction.
The
following procedural history and facts, including what the
jury reasonably could have found from the evidence adduced at
trial, are relevant to our consideration of the issues at
hand. On March 21, 2015, the defendant was living with his
mother, Jackie Greene, and the victim, William Greene, who
was his father, in New Britain in the first floor apartment
of a three-family house. The defendant's mother departed
the home some time prior to 6 a.m., leaving the victim
sleeping in the bedroom and the defendant awake in the living
room. At approximately 8:11 a.m., New Britain police received
an emergency call from the defendant stating that the victim
was lying on the floor not breathing and that there was blood
all over the carpet. At 8:13 a.m., New Britain police arrived
at the apartment, followed shortly thereafter by emergency
medical personnel.
When
the police arrived they noticed a German shepherd on the back
porch that they asked the defendant to restrain. The
defendant reported that he and the victim were the only
occupants in the apartment. Upon entering the apartment, the
police found the victim lying face down on the living room
floor in a pool of blood. The police did not locate any signs
of forced entry. After securing the apartment, police allowed
medical personnel to enter and tend to the victim. In the
course of rendering medical assistance, the medical personnel
turned over the victim's body and observed blood steaming
from where the body had been lying, which indicated to the
medical personnel that the victim's injuries were recent.
On further examination, the medical personnel noticed an
approximately six inch wound to the victim's neck.
Detecting no pulse, the medical personnel presumed the
victim's time of death to be approximately 8:27 a.m.
While the medical personnel were tending to the victim, the
police took multiple photographs and gathered evidence, which
included seizing several knives from the kitchen.
While
being questioned at the scene, the defendant indicated that
he had not heard anyone in the apartment between the time of
his mother's departure and his discovery of the victim
lying on the living room floor. The police did not observe
any blood on the defendant or his clothing. They described
the defendant's demeanor as calm and not upset. The
defendant agreed to accompany police back to the New Britain
Police Department, where he was interviewed for several hours
and given the opportunity to speak with his mother and his
uncle, Scott Davis.
The
medical examiner who conducted an autopsy on the victim on
March 22, 2015, noted cutting injuries to the victim's
neck, as well as a cut to his left thumb. He opined that the
injuries were consistent with having been inflicted by sharp
force. The examiner testified that the victim's sharp
force injuries were consistent with injuries caused by a
knife. The examiner determined, as well, that the
victim's right neck sharp force injury had severed the
victim's carotid artery. He described the wound to the
right side of the neck as a cut, due to the fact that the
injury length on the skin exceeded the depth into the skin.
The left side neck injury was a separate two inch cut.
Finally, the medical examiner testified that the injury to
the thumb was consistent with a defensive wound.
After
the defendant's arrest on March 22, 2015, the state
charged the defendant, by way of information filed on March
23, 2015, with murder in violation of § 53a-54a.
Pursuant to General Statutes § 54-46a, [4] a probable cause
hearing for the murder charge was held on June 8, June 9, and
July 14, 2015. During the court's oral ruling on probable
cause for the murder charge on July 21, 2015, the court,
Alander, J., indicated that it found
incriminating the fact that the defendant and the victim were
alone in the house at the time of the victim's death,
that there were no signs of forced entry or any entry by a
third party, that the front door was blocked and the back
door was locked and guarded by a dog, that there were no
weapons found near the victim or in the room where the victim
was found, that the victim had not been deceased for very
long when police and medical personnel arrived, that the
victim had defensive wounds, and that DNA testing could not
eliminate the victim as a contributor to blood found on a
steak knife retrieved from the kitchen. The court found
several facts to be exculpatory, including the fact that
there was no blood observed on the defendant's body,
hands, or clothes, that there were no signs of a struggle in
the home, and that, because medical personnel opined that the
victim was dead for less than one-half hour prior to being
declared dead at 8:27 a.m. and the defendant's 911 call
was at 8:11 a.m., this timeline gave the defendant very
little time to change his clothes, wash his hands and body,
clean the knife, and remove the knife from the scene before
calling the police.
The
court discounted testimony from Agustin Morales-Rojas, who
testified that, while he and the defendant were incarcerated
together, the defendant had told him that he had killed the
victim. Additionally, the court did not credit the testimony
of the defendant's uncle that the defendant had been
under the influence of drugs on the day of the homicide. On
the basis of the evidence adduced at the probable cause
hearing, the court found that the state had failed to
establish that the defendant intentionally killed the victim
and, thus, concluded that the state had not established
probable cause to charge the defendant with murder. Following
the court's decision, the state, that same day and
pursuant to Practice Book § 36-17, moved to file an
amended information charging the defendant with manslaughter
in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §
53a-55 (a) (1).
On
August 18, 2015, the defendant filed a pretrial motion to
dismiss the substitute information pursuant to General
Statutes § 54-56[5] and Practice Book § 41-8 (1), (2),
(4), and (5).[6] The defendant claimed that the court
lacked jurisdiction over him in the absence of a new warrant
premised on a finding of probable cause by an independent
magistrate. The defendant argued, as well, that there was
insufficient evidence for substituting a charge of
manslaughter for murder. The court, Alander,
J., denied the motion to dismiss on March 11, 2016.
In doing so, the court clarified its earlier ruling on
probable cause for the murder charge, stating that it did not
find that there was insufficient evidence to establish
probable cause that the defendant was the perpetrator of a
crime. Rather, looking to the evidence before it, as well as
DNA evidence linking both the victim and the defendant to a
knife, the court stated that it had found that the state had
established probable cause to charge the defendant with
manslaughter.
During
the defendant's jury trial on the manslaughter charge in
March and April, 2016, the state presented evidence that
several knives seized from the kitchen of the apartment were
examined by the state forensic laboratory for possible
biological evidence. One steak-type knife with a serrated
cutting edge and a wooden handle tested positive for the
presence of biological material in two areas. The biological
material was tested to determine its source by DNA analysis,
and the result was then compared to DNA samples obtained from
both the victim and the defendant using standard DNA typing
procedures. The material found on the blade of the knife was
consistent with the DNA of the victim, and the material found
on the handle of the knife was a mixture of DNA from which
neither the defendant nor the victim could be eliminated as
contributors.
At the
close of the state's case-in-chief, and again at the
close of the defendant's case-in-chief, the defendant
moved orally for a judgment of acquittal. Both motions were
heard and denied by the court, Keegan, J.
On April 7, 2016, a jury found the defendant guilty of
manslaughter in the first degree in violation of §
53a-55 (a) (1). The defendant subsequently filed a motion for
a new trial, dated April 11, 2016, which the court denied on
June 2, 2016. This appeal followed.
I
We turn
first to the defendant's claims that the court erred in
denying his motion to dismiss because (1) the court's
initial finding of no probable cause for murder deprived the
court of jurisdiction over him for both the murder and the
subsequent manslaughter charges, and (2) there was
insufficient evidence of ...