Coccomo v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

• 203 Conn. App. 704

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle, misconduct with a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The petitioner contended that she was prejudiced by counsel's responses to evidence of her blood alcohol content and consciousness of guilt in connection with a motor vehicle collision that killed the occupants of a vehicle that was struck by the petitioner's vehicle. The petitioner had consumed alcohol at a party prior to the accident. A paramedic at the accident scene drew and labeled five tubes of the petitioner's blood, which were placed in a biohazard bag and taken with the petitioner in an ambulance to a hospital. Each of the tubes had a different colored cap. A computer in the hospital's laboratory scanned the tubes and printed labels that identified the test to be performed on each tube of blood. After a hearing outside the jury's presence, the trial court denied the petitioner's motion to exclude the blood alcohol content evidence. W, a laboratory director at the hospital, then testified that a printout from the laboratory's com- puter had indicated that the type of tube normally used to test blood alcohol content had a cap that was different in color from the caps on the five tubes that were in the biohazard bag. The petitioner's counsel thereafter did not renew his motion to exclude the blood alcohol content evidence on chain of custody grounds. The state also offered conscious- ness of guilt evidence that, shortly after the accident, the petitioner had executed a quitclaim deed transferring her one-half interest in her home to her mother. Defense counsel objected unsuccessfully to the admission of that evidence on the ground that, although evidence of a transfer of property to shield assets from recovery may be admissible in a civil case as pro