State v. Grant
799 A.2d 1144, 47 Conn. Supp. 408, 47 Conn. Super. Ct. 408 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of third-party culpability is admissible if it "directly connects" the third party to the crime. This standard functions as a relevancy test where the evidence's probative value in generating a reasonable doubt is weighed against the risk of unfair prejudice, jury confusion, or undue delay, and does not require proof that rises to the level of probable cause.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1973, Concetta ('Penney') Serra was found stabbed to death in the Temple Street parking garage in New Haven.
- Serra's car was discovered in the garage containing blood (Type O) thought to be the killer's; Serra's blood was Type A.
- Two unmailed envelopes addressed to 'Mr. S. Topcier' at 10 Knox Street, West Haven, were found on the car's sun visor. The return address was for Dr. Eugene Horwitch, a dentist.
- Serra worked as a dental assistant for Dr. Horwitch. Selman Topciu, who sometimes used the name 'Topcier,' was a patient of Dr. Horwitch and lived at 10 Knox Street.
- Topciu worked as a cook at a restaurant near Dr. Horwitch's office, where Serra went daily to pick up lunch.
- Eyewitnesses described the killer as a white male with dark hair, a description generally consistent with Topciu's appearance. One witness noted the man had a foreign accent; Topciu was from Albania.
- Topciu has Type O blood and shares a DQ Alpha genetic marker with the perpetrator, a combination found in approximately 5% of the Caucasian population.
- Years later, Edward Grant was arrested for Serra's murder, largely based on a DNA profile match.
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed a motion in limine in the Connecticut Superior Court to preclude the defendant, Edward Grant, from offering evidence that a third party committed the murder with which he was charged.
- Grant filed a written offer of proof regarding evidence of third-party culpability for two individuals, Philip DeLieto and Selman Topciu.
- The state withdrew its motion as to DeLieto but maintained it with respect to Topciu, leading to the court's current decision on the motion.
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 defendant's proffered evidence of a third party's culpability, which includes the third party's connection to the victim, proximity to the crime scene, physical description matching eyewitness accounts, and a shared blood type with the perpetrator, meet the "direct connection" standard for admissibility, even if it does not rise to the level of probable cause and is contradicted by other scientific evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Blue, J.
Yes. The defendant's evidence of a third party's culpability meets the "direct connection" standard for admissibility. The purpose of such evidence is not to prove the guilt of the third party but to generate a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. The 'direct connection' standard is a rule of relevancy, not a requirement for probable cause. The court must balance the probative value of the proffered evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or undue delay. Here, the evidence linking Selman Topciu to the crime—including the envelopes in the victim's car, his connection to the victim, his physical similarity to eyewitness descriptions, and his matching blood type—is sufficiently probative to be presented to a jury. The fact that the state itself twice sought an arrest warrant for Topciu demonstrates the evidence is more than a 'bare suspicion.' Contradictory evidence, such as new DNA testing that excludes Topciu, goes to the weight and credibility of the evidence, which is a question for the jury, not a basis for the court to exclude the defendant's proffer.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'direct connection' standard for admitting third-party culpability evidence in Connecticut is fundamentally a relevancy balancing test, not a requirement for a specific quantum of proof like probable cause. It reinforces the distinct roles of judge and jury, with the judge acting as a gatekeeper for relevance and the jury serving as the ultimate arbiter of credibility and weight. The ruling lowers the barrier for defendants to introduce alternative suspect evidence, thereby strengthening their ability to create reasonable doubt by pointing to other plausible perpetrators.
