STATE v. ROBERT C. SIMMONS, SC 20846

Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk

Criminal; Whether Trial Court Properly Denied Defendant’s Request For Third-Party Culpability Instruction; Whether Evidence Was Sufficient to Establish Defendant's Identity as Perpetrator of the Crimes; Whether Alleged Prosecutorial Improprieties Deprived Defendant of Fair Trial. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 25, 2019, the victim, Isabella Mehner, was found bludgeoned to death in the basement of her home. The police found a hammer, which was stained with blood, near the victim's body. There was also evidence indicating that a robbery had taken place. The victim's wedding rings were missing from her left hand, and the victim's wallet, in which she habitually kept $40 to $50 in cash, did not contain any cash. Following an investigation by the police, the defendant was charged with the victim's murder, home invasion, felony murder, and burglary. At trial, the state used surveillance video footage to create a timeline of the defendant's movements on the evening of the murder. At approximately 5:37 p.m., the defendant entered the victim's home through a side door. The defendant remained in the victim's home for approximately eight minutes, and he exited through the side door at approximately 5:48 p.m. The state also presented incriminating forensic evidence, including evidence that two of the four reddish-brown stains found on the defendant's jeans contained DNA that was consistent with the victim's DNA. There was other forensic evidence, however, that did not link the defendant to the victim's murder. Specifically, the DNA of an unknown male was found on the handle of the bloodstained hammer. In addition, an unknown man's DNA was found on a jewelry box in the victim's bedroom. The defendant's DNA, however, was not found on those items or on any item near the victim's body. Based on this DNA evidence, the defendant requested that the trial court instruct the jury on third-party culpability. The trial court, however, refused to give such an instruction on the ground that the evidence failed to establish a direct connection between a third party and the crime. The court explained that, although there was unknown male DNA on the handle of the hammer, there was no evidence that "some other male other than the defendant entered [the victim's home] between 5:15 and 8:00 in the evening." In addition, the court noted that there was physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene. After the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of all charged crimes. The defendant directly appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for a third-party culpability instruction because, contrary to the trial court's conclusion, the DNA evidence provided a direct connection between the crime scene and a third party. The defendant also claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove the element of identity beyond a reasonable doubt for all four charged offenses. Specifically, he argues that the jury could not have found that he was the perpetrator of the charged crimes without resorting to speculation and conjecture. In addition, the defendant claims that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial by prosecutorial improprieties. Specifically, he contends that, during closing arguments, the prosecutor mischaracterized the evidence by arguing (1) that the victim's blood was on the defendant's jeans, (2) that the defendant's DNA was "in" the victim's fingernails, (3) that the defendant was the only person to enter the victim's home, and (4) that the victim fought with the defendant.