State v. Butler
1988 Conn. LEXIS 134, 543 A.2d 270, 207 Conn. 619 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prior inconsistent statement, whether oral or written, is admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness, even if unsigned, provided a proper foundation is laid and the jury is instructed on its limited use solely for impeachment purposes.
Facts:
- On February 18, 1986, at approximately 8 p.m., two men robbed the Brewster Pharmacy in Waterbury.
- One of the robbers wore a brown, three-quarter length coat and a green ski mask and carried a rifle; the other man was Anthony Nichols.
- After collecting money, the two robbers fled the scene.
- A witness saw the men running from the pharmacy, flagged down a police cruiser, and informed the officer of their direction.
- Police officers followed the trail to the backyard at 101 Division Street in Waterbury.
- Police arrested Anthony Nichols and Mélico Butler in the backyard at 101 Division Street and seized a coat, ski mask, and rifle found nearby.
- At trial, Anthony Nichols testified for the defense, stating that he committed the robbery with an accomplice named J.D.L., not Butler, and denied giving any statement to the police.
- Detective John Maia interviewed Nichols after his arrest, typed Nichols' account of the robbery as Nichols gave it, and presented it to Nichols, who reportedly read it but refused to sign it; this statement implicated Butler as Nichols' accomplice.
Procedural Posture:
- Mélico Butler was charged with robbery in the first degree and being a persistent dangerous felony offender.
- After a jury trial in a state trial court, Mélico Butler was found guilty of the robbery charge.
- Mélico Butler pleaded guilty to the charge of being a persistent dangerous felony offender.
- Mélico Butler (defendant/appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Connecticut (the court whose opinion is being briefed).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a typewritten but unsigned out-of-court statement, prepared by a police detective and disavowed by the witness, constitute inadmissible hearsay when offered solely to impeach the witness's credibility at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Hull, J.
No, a typewritten but unsigned out-of-court statement, prepared by a police detective and disavowed by the witness, does not constitute inadmissible hearsay when offered solely to impeach the witness's credibility at trial, provided a proper foundation is laid and its use is properly limited by jury instructions. The court affirmed that a prior inconsistent statement, whether oral or written, is admissible to impeach a witness's credibility, citing State v. Saia and Schurgast v. Schumann. A proper foundation was established because Nichols was confronted with the statement, apprised of the time and place it was allegedly made, and denied making it, thereby allowing the introduction of extrinsic evidence. The court rejected the argument, relying on People v. Rodgers, that the unsigned typed statement itself was inadmissible hearsay from the detective. It held that there is no appreciable difference between proving a prior inconsistent oral statement through testimony and introducing its content via a typed writing, as long as it is presented with testimony that the witness made the statement. The crucial determination of whether the statement was Nichols' rested on the jury's assessment of witness credibility (Maia vs. Nichols), which was a question of fact. The trial court's instructions correctly limited the statement's use to impeachment and emphasized the jury's role in determining if Nichols had adopted it. Furthermore, the court found no error in the jury instructions on reasonable doubt, concluding that the charge, viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed the state's burden of proof and that the admonition to disregard the term “moral certainty” was a proper exercise of discretion to avoid jury confusion.
Concurring - Shea, J.
Yes, the admission of the typewritten, unsigned statement prepared by Detective John Maia was a violation of the hearsay rule as observed in Connecticut, but it constituted harmless error in this case. Justice Shea agreed with the majority's overall outcome but disagreed with its holding that the admission of the document was not erroneous. He characterized Maia's written account as a "self-serving declaration" that merely corroborated Maia's oral testimony, citing cases like Hutchinson v. Plante and Smith v. Phipps. Such documentary evidence, when available to a jury during deliberations, can be given undue emphasis compared to live testimony. However, the error was harmless because Maia also testified orally to the same critical fact (Nichols naming Butler as his accomplice). The entire substance of the document could have been introduced through Maia’s oral testimony, either to refresh his recollection or as a past recollection recorded, making the admission of the document itself non-prejudicial.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements, particularly those that are unsigned and disavowed by the witness, for impeachment purposes. The majority opinion strengthens the judicial discretion in admitting such evidence, emphasizing the jury's role in determining authenticity and credibility, rather than creating a rigid hearsay barrier. The distinction between using a statement for impeachment versus substantive proof remains critical, requiring precise jury instructions. The concurring opinion highlights an ongoing debate regarding the hearsay nature of such documents and hints at a potential alignment with federal rules that are more liberal regarding prior statements, suggesting a possible future evolution in state evidentiary law.
