Skip to main content

State v. Calhoun

Citations

  • 346 Conn. 288

Syllabus

Convicted of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant had been arrested several years after the shooting, after two individuals, C and K, came forward and claimed to have witnessed the defendant shoot the victim. At trial, the state's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of C and K, who were incarcerated both at the time of trial and when they first approached the police with information about the shooting. The trial court admitted into evidence the entirety of the cooperation agree- ments that C and K had with the state, and the prosecutor used those agreements to rehabilitate C and K during their respective direct exami- nations, before either witness had been impeached. Defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined C and K, including about their cooperation agreements, but the trial court precluded defense counsel from ques- tioning K about certain details of a prior arrest, which occurred after K testified before the grand jury in the present case and while he was released on parole. The trial court also declined defense counsel's request for a jailhouse informant instruction with respect to C and K and, instead, gave the jury a special credibility instruction in which it noted that C and K had entered into cooperation agreements and urged the jury to examine their testimony with ''careful scrutiny'' and ''particu- lar care . . . .'' On the defendant's appeal from the judgment of convic- tion, held: 1. The trial court gave an adequate special credibility instruction and did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the requested jailhouse informant instruction: Although the trial court's instruction was not in the exact form of the requested jailhouse informant instruction, the substance of the requested instruction was very similar to the instruction that the jury was given, the jury having been cautioned that C and K were receiving benefits from the state in return for testifying, t

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that probative value of gratuitous references to witness’ obligation under agreement to tell truth are ‘‘negligible and outweighed by their prejudicial effect’’
  • ‘‘[j]ury instructions are not ‘one size fits all formulations,’ which is why trial courts must sometimes modify jury instructions to meet the needs of a case’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.