State v. Carey

337 Conn. 463

254 A.3d 265

STATE of Connecticut

v.Alanna R. CAREY

SC 20273

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 3, 2020

Officially released November 23, 2020^*

Jennifer B. Smith, for the appellant (defendant).

Rocco A. Chiarenza, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Brian Preleski, state's attorney, John H. Malone, former supervisory assistant state's attorney, and David Clifton, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, and Ecker, Js.

KAHN, J.

The defendant, Alanna R. Carey, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that any error relating to the admission of testimony from a witness called during the state's case on rebuttal, Mark Manganello, was harmless. Specifically, the defendant claims that Manganello's testimony fatally undermined her theory of self-defense and that, as a result, it likely had a substantial effect on the jury's verdict. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The jury could have reasonably found the following facts. The defendant began dating the victim in 1999. In 2008, the victim and his children from a previous marriage began living at the defendant's home in Glastonbury. The relationship between the defendant and the victim was deeply troubled; they often fought, called each other names, and exchanged threats of violence. The two were once engaged but never married. Although the defendant testified that the victim often became agitated, and even physically abusive, their neighbors also testified that the defendant appeared to be the aggressor during arguments and that the victim "most often" would just leave the house when those fights occurred.

The jury heard various pieces of evidence about the victim's activities and character. He was a member of the James Gang Motorcycle Club, carried multiple knives, used cocaine, drank to excess, and often stayed out late.¹ Testimony offered at trial indicated that the victim wore a "1 percenter" patch on his leather club vest, which signified that he was part of the 1 percent of motorcycle riders who do not obey the law. The defendant sought to show her own subjective fear of the victim by calling a particular witness, David Hillman, who testified that the victim had threatened him at a bar in South Glastonbury, that several men had physically assaulted him, and that the victim had injured him twice with a knife. Other testimony presented to the jury, however, indicated that the James Gang Motorcycle Club included individuals with "regular every day jobs" and that, although the police had some suspicions about their activities, it never led to any arrests.

The relationship between the defendant and the victim deteriorated over the weeks preceding the victim's death. On December 12, 2011, the defendant's sister, Johanna Carey-Lang, discovered the victim with another woman, Jodi D'Onofrio, inside of the defendant's own home. This discovery led the victim to call the defendant and admit his infidelity.² This incident did not, however, immediately end their relationship; later that same day, the defendant was cuddling with the victim on the couch and asked Carey-Lang to leave so that they could spend time together.³ Two days later, the victim moved out of the home, gave his keys to the defendant, and rented room 145 at the Carrier Motor Lodge (motel) in Newington, the location where the victim later died. At one point, the defendant described this separation to the jury as "a timeout for repeated bad behavior ...."

Approximately two weeks prior to the victim's death, there was an incident between the defendant and the victim at the same motel. On December 18, 2011, the defendant brought her gun, but not her cell phone, to the motel, checked into a room, and then called Carey-Lang using the telephone inside of that room in order to ask her to place a three-way call to the victim.⁴ The victim answered that call from his own room and, during the course of that conversation, told the defendant that he loved D'Onofrio. D'Onofrio, who was lying in bed with the victim at the time, looked out of the window and saw the defendant's car parked outside. The defendant left a short time later, and the victim then escorted D'Onofrio to her car. The defendant testified that she returned to the motel later that same evening, had sex with the victim, and checked out of her own room the following morning. One of the victim's friends, Jessica Montano, testified that the victim had told her that he was scared by the defendant's actions that day. Specifically, Montano testified that the victim had described the defendant as "more upset than he had ever seen her" and indicated that the defendant "would do anything to get him to stay."

Manganello's testimony, the admission of which is the subject of the present appeal, relates to the victim's out-of-court description of an altercation that allegedly occurred on December 24, 2011. That testimony, which will be reviewed in greater detail subsequently in this opinion, indicated that the victim had entered the defendant's home through a window to retrieve some belongings on that date and was confronted by the defendant, who allegedly pointed a gun at his head, told him to get out, and threatened to "blow his f'ing brains out" if he ever returned.

Notwithstanding these events, the defendant and the victim continued to interact with one another over the days that followed. On a few occasions, the defendant asked Carey-Lang to leave the home in Glastonbury so that she could spend "alone time" with the victim. The defendant testified, more specifically, that she had sex with the victim on at least three occasions from December 25, 2011, to January 1, 2012.⁵ The defendant also recounted various other interactions with the victim during this time relating to his children, laundry, and diabetes.⁶

By January, the defendant believed their relationship was ending. On January 1, 2012, the defendant sent a text message to a friend, stating, "I think he is afraid to have to explain to his friends if he were to come back home. I think that this split is permanent. I asked about therapy, he said it used to be an option. I don't think it is an option any more." The following morning, the defendant asked to accompany Carey-Lang and her boyfriend, Leon Brazalovich, to an indoor shooting range located inside of Hoffman's gun store in Newington. Although Carey-Lang testified that she had planned the trip for Brazalovich's entertainment, only the defendant and Carey-Lang brought their guns and signed into the range that day.⁷ The range safety officer, Steven Wawruck, testified that both of the sisters appeared to be amateurs and that both required assistance when their guns jammed. Wawruck also recalled that the defendant did most of the shooting that day.

Shortly after leaving the shooting range, the defendant spoke with the victim over the phone. The defendant testified that the victim had asked her to bring him lunch because he had run out of money and needed food to regulate his insulin levels. The defendant then drove Carey-Lang and Brazalovich to a nearby restaurant and, along the way, asked Brazalovich to reload the magazines to her gun. When Brazalovich finished, he placed the loaded magazines inside of a zippered case containing the defendant's gun. The defendant then drove to the motel and exited the vehicle with a bag of food, her purse, and that zippered case. Brazalovich and Carey-Lang then took the vehicle and left to go get their own lunch shortly after 2 p.m. It is undisputed that the defendant shot the victim three times around 7:30 p.m. that evening in his motel room and that, as a result, the victim died.

The defendant provided the jury with her own account of the events inside of the victim's motel room that led to his death. She testified that, after lunch on the day of the shooting, the victim began blaming Carey-Lang for catching him with D'Onofrio and became very angry that Carey-Lang and Brazalovich had just been in the motel parking lot.⁸ The defendant stated that she eventually succeeded in calming the victim down and that she went into the bathroom with her purse around 3:15 p.m.⁹ The defendant testified that, at that time, she took her gun out of her purse, put a magazine into it, chambered a round, and then returned the gun to her purse.¹⁰

The defendant stated that the conversations with the victim were "up and down" after that. According to the defendant, the victim told her that he wanted to move back in with her, but she told him that it would not be possible without counseling. The defendant stated that this caused the victim's anger to "flare up" again.¹¹ Starting around 4:20 p.m., the defendant began sending a series of text messages to Carey-Lang asking when she could be picked up. These messages stated, among other things, that the victim was mad, yelling at her, and making threats.¹² Carey-Lang, who had been at a gymnastics class with her daughter, eventually left to pick up the defendant around 6:50 p.m. The defendant testified that, around that time, she had succeeded in calming the victim down a second time and had then, once again, excused herself to use the bathroom. The defendant stated that, while she was out of the room, the victim received a call from D'Onofrio and that, when she returned, the victim was "agitated" and "looking to pick a fight ...." The defendant told the jury that a loud argument ensued¹³ and that she eventually succeeded in calming the victim down for a third time.

The defendant testified that, at this point, the victim was reclined against the headboard of one of the beds with his left leg bent up near his body and his right leg ...