Connecticut Supreme Court building in Hartford. Photo: Natalia Bratslavsky/Shutterstock.com

In a case where the "co-conspirator exception" to the hearsay rule played a prominent role, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 against a new trial for a defendant sentenced to 55 years in prison for murdering a fellow gang member.

The three dissenting justices wrote in Connecticut v. Ayala that the majority had it wrong. They found the trial court had improperly admitted testimony—under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule—implicating defendant Vincent Ayala in the murder of Thomas Mozell Jr.

But the majority concluded that even if this were true, and the judge had erred in admitting the testimony, the defendant had not shown that this error had harmed his trial.

"Although this was not an ironclad case, it certainly was sufficiently strong, even without considering the challenged testimony, so that we have a fair assurance that admission of the challenged statements did not substantially affect the verdict," the majority ruled.

The appeal turned, in part, on testimony from gang members who said Ayala told them he'd shot Mozell in the head, under orders from a gang leader known as Terror. One of the witnesses, Jordan Richard, said Ayala provided details about the shooting.

The men were members of Piru, a nationwide street gang with a New Haven presence and affiliated with the California-based Bloods, according to the high court's recitation of facts in the case. Their leader, Terror, believed Mozell had disrespected the gang, and that Mozell would leave the group and retaliate against it. This prompted Terror to order Ayala, his "hood enforcer" to kill Mozell, according to details from the case's procedural history.

The defense argued the gang members' testimony did not meet the standard that would allow the court to admit it under an exception that allows hearsay from co-conspirators. It said prosecutors had presented insufficient evidence that the men were in league together and that there was a conspiracy between Terror and the defendant when Terror made the statements. Ayala's counsel also hit at the second prong for qualifying under the exception, arguing that prosecutors had also failed to show that Terror had testified as part of that conspiracy.

The state disagreed, arguing that the men were in league, that the trial court had properly added Terror's testimony, and that Ayala had pulled witness Richard further into the conspiracy to prevent Richard from going to the police.

"Stated succinctly, Terror's statement simply was not pivotal to the state's case," Justice Raheem Mullins wrote for the majority.

However, the dissent, written by Justice Gregory D'Auria, noted there was no direct physical evidence linking Ayala to the murder and no eyewitnesses other than Terror.

"Lawyers learn early in law school what we all know instinctively to be true: conclusions built on hearsay can be inherently unreliable and unfair," D'Auria wrote. "When a witness testifies to what another has said—unsworn and out of court—there is a heightened potential that the evidence is inaccurate, fabricated or lacking context."

"At best, this was a 'close case,'" D'Auria continued, noting that no physical evidence—no fingerprints or DNA—connected the defendant to the crime scene.

"I cannot agree with the majority that the state's case can objectively be described as strong, even when considering all of the evidence, let alone if Terror's statement to Richard is excluded," D'Auria wrote in the dissent. "I disagree with the majority that the state's case was sufficiently strong. I disagree with the majority's conclusion on harm."

Representing Ayala were Christopher Duby and Robert O'Brien, both with the Law Office of Christopher Duby in Hamden. Neither attorney responded to a request for comment Friday.

Representing the state were Senior State's Attorney John Doyle Jr., who did not respond to a request for comment Friday; State's Attorney Patrick Griffin, who said he had no comment because he was still reviewing the ruling; and Assistant State's Attorney Linda Currie-Zeffiro.

"I think they decided it correctly," Currie-Zeffiro said of the high court's ruling. "I think the decision speaks for itself."