SC20802 - State v. McFarland ("In August, 1987, the decomposed bodies of the victims, Fred Harris and his son, Gregory Harris, were found murdered in an apartment they shared in Hamden. The crime went unsolved until 2019, when scientific advancements in DNA testing led to the arrest of the defendant, Willie McFarland. The defendant now appeals from his conviction of both murders, following a jury trial in 2022. The primary issue on appeal is whether the thirty-two year delay between the 1987 murders and his 2019 arrest violated the defendant's right to due process under the federal and state constitutions. The defendant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) declining to order a new competency evaluation after previously finding him competent to stand trial, and (2) finding that a deceased witness' statements included in police reports were not admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule because they did not manifest the required guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")
AC47138 - State v. William A. ("The defendant, William A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) pursuant to Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), the state violated his fifth amendment right to remain silent when the prosecutor impermissibly asked a question and elicited testimony during the state's case-in-chief and commented during closing argument about the defendant's post-Miranda silence, (2) the prosecutor's improper question about the defendant's post-Miranda silence implicated the defendant's constitutional right to have the state prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and thereby implied that the defendant had to prove his innocence, in violation of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), (3) the prosecutor engaged in improprieties during the trial and closing argument that deprived the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial, and (4) the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt when there was no evidence to support such an instruction and the instruction did not comply with the model Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions. We agree that the prosecutor impermissibly asked a question and elicited testimony about the defendant's post-Miranda silence in violation of Doyle and conclude that the state has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial.")