State of Connecticut v. Lakisha Schatzman-Carpenter (2010)

Ruling on prior misconduct

THE COURT:  Now, we're moving to the State's motion or request to introduce evidence of prior misconduct of the Defendant under section 4.5 of the Connecticut code of evidence, which provides as follows:  Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of a person are inadmissible to prove the bad character or criminal tendencies of that person.   However, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of a person is admissible for purposes other than those specified above, the bad character or criminal tendencies.   And specifically, to prove things such as intent, identity, malice, motive, common plan or scheme, absence of mistake or accident, knowledge, a criminal-a system of criminal activity, or an element of the crime, or to corroborate crucial prosecution testimony.

Specifically, the State seeks to introduce the evidence of the Defendant's fraudulent application for child care benefits under the Care for Kids program in 2005 for which she received benefits totaling $2,859 and evidence of the Defendant's allegedly fraudulent application for SSI benefits for her son in the amount of $19,765.45 from the period of July 2005 through March of 2009.   The State seeks to introduce this evidence on the issue of intent and a common plan or scheme to defraud a public community.

In the matter on trial, the Defendant is charged in two counts of larceny in the 1st degree by defrauding a public community by authorizing, certifying, attesting, or filing a claim for benefits or reimbursement from a state agency which the Defendant knew to be false or by knowingly accepting benefits from a claim filed, which the Defendant knew to be false during the time period between September 1st of 2004 and October 31st of 2008.

Two determinations are necessary for such evidence to be admissible.   The first determination is that it must be probative of one of more of the offered purposes, which in this case would be intent and or a common scheme or plan.   And its probative value must not be outweighed by its prejudicial affect.

In this particular case, the similarities between the other misconduct and the substantial connections between the other misconduct and the crimes charges are clearly probative of a continuing scheme of governmental fraud.   Further, in a case of this nature involving fraud, the range of relevant evidence is wide, especially as it bears on the essential element of intent, which involves a state of mind and can generally be proven only by circumstantial evidence.

And therefore, the Court finds that both of these instances, the evidence that the State seeks to admit are highly probative and relevant to the issues on which the State seeks to admit them.   And the Court has considered the, and weighed the probative value versus the prejudicial affect and finds that the probative value is not outweighed by the prejudicial affect.

Therefore, the State's motion to present evidence of other misconduct or request is granted.   The evidence shall first be presented outside the presence of the jury so that the Court may rule on any portions of such evidence that may not be presented to the jury.   And the Court will instruct the jury as to the purpose or purposes for which the jury may and may not consider such evidence both at the time any such evidence in presented to the jury and in its final instructions on the law to the jury.

Dennis, Maureen D., J.