STATE v. JAROD HAMILTON, SC 20806

Judicial District of Bridgeport

Criminal; Whether Trial Court Improperly Admitted Statements Made by Uncooperative State's Key Witness under State v. Whelan; Whether Trial Court Improperly Admitted Statements Made by Father of State's Key Witness During Witness' Interview under Whelan Because Witness Adopted Statements; Whether Trial Court Improperly Admitted Photographs and Video of Defendant Posted on Social Media. On December 23, 2017, a man wearing "Jordan 13" sneakers shot and killed the victim, Khali Davis, outside a deli in Bridgeport. After the shooter fled, he entered the passenger side of a vehicle owned by Daequan Carr. Carr subsequently gave two recorded statements to the police that inculpated the defendant in the murder of the victim. Carr appeared alone for the first interview, but his second interview was conducted in the presence of his father, Dennis Cobia. The defendant was subsequently charged with murder. At trial, when the state asked Carr if he "picked up" the defendant on the morning of the murder, Carr responded that he could not remember. The state then asked Carr several times whether he remembered giving statements to the police about whom he picked up that morning. In response, Carr repeatedly testified that he did not "want to be here" and that he did not "want to speak." Thereafter, upon the state's motion, the trial court admitted Carr's statements into evidence pursuant to the prior inconsistent statement exception to the hearsay rule adopted in State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (1986). Subsequently, defense counsel objected to several disparaging comments regarding the defendant made by Cobia that could be heard in the recording of Carr's second interview on the ground that they constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court overruled the objection, ruling that, to the extent Carr "adopted" Cobia's statements either by verbally agreeing with them or by nodding affirmatively, the statements were admissible as Carr's statements under Whelan. After the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder. The defendant now appeals directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted Carr's statements under Whelan because, although Carr was uncooperative, his trial testimony was not inconsistent with his statements. Next, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant and prejudicial comments by Cobia in Carr's second Whelan statement under the adoptive admissions exception to the hearsay rule. See Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (1) (B). He asks that the Supreme Court hold that Whelan statements may not include adoptive admissions by a witness because a witness, as opposed to a defendant, has no natural incentive to contradict incorrect statements that inculpate a third party. Alternatively, he argues that Cobia's statements did not constitute adoptive admissions by Carr because there was no definite proof that the Carr intended to adopt Cobia's comments. He also argues that the Cobia's statements should have been excluded because they were irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. Finally, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence (1) a Facebook photograph of the defendant wearing "Jordan 13" sneakers and (2) photographs and video from the defendant's Snapchat account showing him holding a firearm on the ground that the evidence was probative of the defendant's identity as the shooter. He argues that the prejudicial effect of this evidence far outweighed its probative value.