Opinion
(3989) (4182)
Argued January 14, 1988
Decision released March 22, 1988
Substitute information charging each defendant with the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, and aiding in assault in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the cases were consolidated and tried to the jury before Ford, J.; verdicts and judgments of guilty, from which the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, Hull, Daly and Bieluch, Js., which set aside the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial; thereafter, this court, on its own motion, ordered reargument. Judgments reinstated; further proceedings.
Richard F. Jacobson, assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
Leopold P. De Fusco, special public defender, for the appellee (defendant in the first case).
James M. Connolly, for the appellee (defendant in the second case).
This opinion follows oral argument on this court's own motion to determine whether it should have set aside the judgments in State v. Douglas, 10 Conn. App. 103, 124, 522 A.2d 302 (1987). After hearing, we conclude that the judgments should not have been set aside and we hereby reinstate them.
Further, the case is remanded to the trial court to conduct an in camera examination to determine whether the transcript in the earlier trial of co-accused, Herbert Johnson, contained material prior inconsistent statements of witnesses sufficient to have affected the outcome of the trials of either or both of these defendants. If there is no material inconsistency found, then there is no error and the judgments remain undisturbed. If a sufficient material inconsistency is found, then there is error and the trial court must determine whether the error was harmful or harmless. If the trial court concludes that the state has met its burden as to either defendant in proving the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, then the judgment of conviction of that defendant remains undisturbed, subject to any further appeal to this court concerning the trial court's ruling on that issue. If the trial court finds harmful error as to either defendant, that judgment of conviction is set aside and a new trial is hereby ordered as to that defendant.