## Facts

- Two men robbed a pharmacy in Waterbury, Connecticut; one wore a ski mask and carried a rifle, and the other was Anthony Nichols.
- Police followed suspects’ flight path and arrested Nichols and Melico Butler in a nearby yard; officers seized a coat, ski mask, and rifle found close to the arrests.
- At Butler’s insistence, the defense called Nichols, who testified Butler was not involved and claimed a third person committed the robbery with him; Nichols also asserted he had not given a statement to police.
- On cross-examination, Nichols admitted speaking with a detective the night of the robbery and admitting his own role, but denied identifying Butler as an accomplice.
- The State introduced evidence that a detective typed a two-page “Voluntary Statement” summarizing Nichols’s oral remarks and that Nichols refused to sign it after reviewing it.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted the typed, unsigned document only to impeach Nichols as a prior inconsistent statement and instructed the jury it could not be used as substantive proof of Butler’s guilt.
- A jury found Butler guilty of first-degree robbery; he later pleaded guilty to being a persistent dangerous felony offender, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an unsigned, typewritten document summarizing a witness’s oral remarks could be admitted as the witness’s prior inconsistent statement for impeachment.
2. Whether the trial court’s limiting instruction adequately confined the jury’s use of the statement to credibility assessment.
3. Whether the instructions concerning the statement lowered or misstated the State’s burden to prove the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the trial court was required to instruct on a separate “degree of certitude” necessary to convict.
5. Whether the reasonable-doubt instructions, viewed as a whole, were constitutionally sufficient.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the conviction, finding no error.
- The court held the typed, unsigned statement was properly admitted for impeachment where a sufficient foundation supported that it memorialized the witness’s prior oral remarks and it directly contradicted trial testimony.
- The court held the limiting instruction was adequate, and jurors were presumed to follow it.
- Reviewing the charge as a whole, the court concluded the instructions did not lower the State’s burden of proof or misstate the elements.
- The court held no additional “degree of certitude” instruction was required beyond a proper reasonable-doubt charge.
- The court upheld the reasonable-doubt instruction as constitutionally adequate when read in its entirety.

## Legal Principles

- A prior inconsistent statement offered solely to impeach credibility may be admitted upon an adequate foundation, even if the statement is not admissible as substantive evidence.
- An unsigned, typewritten memorialization of an oral statement may be used for impeachment when testimony supports that it accurately records the witness’s prior remarks and the witness’s trial testimony is inconsistent.
- Clear limiting instructions restricting impeachment evidence to credibility, not guilt, generally prevent improper substantive use; juries are presumed to follow such instructions.
- Claims that a jury charge reduced the prosecution’s burden are evaluated by examining the instructions as a whole, not isolated phrases.
- A court is not required to give special “degree of certitude” language if the reasonable-doubt instruction properly conveys the State’s obligation to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Butler’s robbery conviction, ruling that an unsigned, typed statement could be admitted to impeach a defense witness as a prior inconsistent statement when supported by foundational testimony and accompanied by an effective limiting instruction, and that the overall jury charge correctly preserved the State’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


State v. Butler, 207 Conn. 619, 543 A.2d 270 (Conn. 1988)