State v. Qinxuan Pan

1

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. QINXUAN PAN

No. SC 210039

Supreme Court of Connecticut

November 23, 2022

The petition of the defendant, Qinxuan Pan, filed August 9, 2021 for review of the trial court's denial of his motion for modification of bond, having been presented to the court, it is hereby ordered granted, the relief requested is granted in part, and the case is remanded with direction to consider the defendant's request for a 10 percent bail option pursuant to Practice Book § 38-8.

PER CURIAM

The defendant, Qinxuan Pan, seeks review^[1] of the trial court's denial of his motion for modification of the $20 million bond that was set in connection with murder charges against him. The defendant claims that the trial court Harmon, J., abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify the $20 million bond set at his arraignment by the trial court, B. Fischer, J., because (1) the bail amount is unreasonably high, and (2) the trial court incorrectly concluded that it lacked the authority under Practice Book § 38-8^[2] to grant the defendant's request for a 10 percent cash option.^[3] Although we conclude that the $20 million bond amount was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion given the extraordinary flight risk and public safety considerations presented in this case we agree with the defendant's second claim and conclude that remand to the trial court is necessary for that court to consider its authority to grant a 10 percent cash option. Because this case highlights the existence of several substantive and procedural issues concerning the information on which the judges of the Superior Court rely in setting reasonable bond amounts, we also address the procedures applicable to any future bond modification proceedings. Accordingly, we grant the defendant's petition for review, and we grant the relief requested in part.

The record reveals the following relevant background facts and procedural history.^[4] The defendant is charged with murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a arising from the shooting of the victim, Kevin Jiang, in New Haven on February 6, 2021. In signing the warrant for the defendant's arrest on February 26, 2021, Judge Harmon set the defendant's bail at $5 million cash or surety. Following a nationwide manhunt that took several months and involved multiple federal and state law enforcement agencies the defendant was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama, on May 13, 2021, and waived extradition to Connecticut. The defendant was arraigned before Judge Fischer in Connecticut on May 20, 2021.

At arraignment, the bail commissioner recommended that Judge Fischer keep the defendant's bond at the $5 million set when Judge Harmon signed the warrant, arguing that the defendant is a Massachusetts resident with no ties to Connecticut who presents "a serious flight risk" insofar as he had fled the state and is "struggling] with mental health issues." The prosecutor, however, asked Judge Fischer to increase the defendant's bond to $50 million, contending that "he is an extreme danger to the community and a major flight risk" given the violent nature of the shooting and the three month manhunt it took to locate him in Montgomery, Alabama, where he had rented an apartment under a false name and was in possession of approximately $19,000 in cash, along with seven cell phones, a computer, and his father's passport. The prosecutor represented to Judge Fischer that the defendant's family has "very substantial financial assets, going well into the millions of dollars," including the ownership of two houses in Massachusetts, and that the defendant, although a United States citizen, "has ties to people in multiple states" and "was born in and has ties to Shanghai, China."

In response, defense counsel requested the imposition of "a reasonable bond" of $2 or $3 million, along with electronic monitoring, acknowledging the defendant's "flight pattern" but relying on his waiver of extradition, lack of a criminal record, and academic achievement, as well as his parents' willingness to post their house for bond. The defendant argued that the ownership of two houses in Massachusetts "hardly makes [the defendant's parents] billionaires." After considering the arguments, Judge Fischer increased the defendant's bond to $20 million, stating that he "is extremely troubled by the efforts th[e] defendant has made to avoid apprehension and potentially flee th[e] country . . . ."^[5] Judge Fischer then ordered the case transferred to the part A docket for the judicial district of New Haven.

The defendant subsequently initiated steps to obtain modification and appellate review of the $20 million bond set at arraignment by Judge Fischer. First, on June 1, 2021, the defendant filed his first petition for appellate review of the $20 million bond set by Judge Fischer.^[6] Second, on July 8, 2021, the defendant filed a motion in the trial court seeking modification of the bond. See Practice Book § 38-14.^[7]

On June 29, 2021, we granted the defendant's first petition for review and ordered Judge Fischer either (1) to "articulate the facts . . . and the factors . . . considered in setting bond for the defendant" at $20 million pursuant to General Statutes (Supp. 2022) § 54-64a (b), as amended by Public Acts 2022, No. 22-37, § 38 (P.A. 22-37),^[8] or (2) to "hold a hearing to establish such facts and [to] apply such statutory factors." On July 12, 2021, Judge Fischer issued an articulation in response to our order.^[9] Subsequently, on July 20, 2021, we denied the relief requested in the defendant's first motion to review "without prejudice to refiling after the hearing regarding the [July 8] motion for modification of bond .... [We] further ordered, sua sponte, that the judge who presides over the motion for modification of bond . . . state on the record or in a memorandum of decision the factors considered under Practice Book § 38-4 (c)^[10] and the correlation between the reasonableness of the amount of the bond set to ensure that the defendant will appear in court and not threaten the safety of himself or another person." (Footnote added.)

Subsequently, on July 28, 2021, Judge Harmon held a hearing on the July 8 motion for modification of the defendant's bond. See Practice Book § 38-17.^[11] At that hearing, defense counsel first renewed his reliance on the bail commissioner's initial $5 million recommendation, contending that it was consistent with the bond amount imposed when the warrant was signed by Judge Harmon, who was "aware" that the defendant had already "been on the run for three weeks" and of the "serious" allegations described in the warrant. Addressing the strength of the state's case, defense counsel also argued that there were 911 telephone calls at the time of the shooting indicating that a black male was the shooter and that there were two people in the sport utility vehicle from which the shots were fired, putting it "in the realm of possibility that [the defendant] hypothetically was present but not the shooter." With respect to his risk of flight, counsel relied on the defendant's cooperative demeanor when he interacted with North Haven police officers on the night of the shooting and when he was apprehended in Alabama three months later, which, counsel argued, along with his waiver of extradition, "are indicia of his intent to come back" to Connecticut. Defense counsel also contended that there is no evidence that the defendant has any connections to China, insofar as his parents renounced their Chinese citizenship and had not had contact with people in that country for the last five years. Counsel argued that the extent of the defendant's family wealth has been overstated, that the defendant personally is indigent, and that his personal income prior to his arrest was his graduate student stipend of approximately $30,000 annually, with no assets. Relying on his lack of a criminal record prior to this case, the defendant offered to remain in Connecticut and to submit to electronic monitoring upon the issuance of a "reasonable and not excessive" bond, as constitutionally required under this court's decisions, including State v. Menillo, 159 Conn. 264, 269, 268 A.2d 667 (1970).

The prosecutor objected to the defendant's request for a bond reduction. The prosecutor reviewed the statutory factors of § 54-64a (b) (1) and (2) that are recited in Practice Book § 38-4 (c) and (d), respectively, and argued that the defendant presented a significant flight risk and a danger to the community and himself. The prosecutor represented that, contrary to the defense's arguments, the defendant's family had contact with China as recently as 2020. The prosecutor emphasized the role of the defendant's family, in particular his parents, in facilitating his flight from Connecticut-noting that license plate readers, surveillance videos, and a lost cell phone confirmed their presence with the defendant at various locations in New York, North Carolina, and Georgia during his flight from Connecticut. The prosecutor represented to Judge Harmon that law enforcement officials had "informed the [prosecutor] that the defendant and his family had substantial financial assets, well into the millions of dollars," observing that large wire transfers from China to them had "been flagged numerous times for suspicious activity" by the United States Department of the Treasury. The prosecutor also relied on the defendant's mental health issues, his Massachusetts residency with "absolutely no ties" to Connecticut, and the fact that he "still has family in China . . . and is engaging in financial transactions originating from that country." The prosecutor then described the significant evidence linking the defendant to the victim's murder, including...