Date: 12-31-1993

Case Style:

State of Connecticut v. Maceo "Troy" Streater

Case Number:

Judge: Bruce Thompson

Court: Superior Court, New Haven, Connecticut

Plaintiff's Attorney: New Haven County Connecticut District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: New Haven, Connecticut criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with first-degree murder, in violation of General Statutes, Section 53a-54a and one count of carrying a pistol without a permit, in violation of General Statutes, Section 29-35, in connection with the death on May 8, 1990, of Terrance Gamble.

Maceo "Troy" Streater, age 23, was accused of shooting and killing Terrance Gamble, age 19, on May 8, 1990 in the Newhallville neighborhood of New Haven. Gamble was shot five times.

Streater was identified from mug shots by a 12-year-old boy who claimed that he saw Gable shot.

Joseph Preston, age 19, also claimed that he saw Gamble shoot Gamble.

Streater testified that he was in the area looking for his brother but denied that he had anything to do with the shooting death of Gamble.

A trial to a jury commenced on July 24, 1991, ending in a mistrial on August 13, 1991 after the jury reported it was unable to reach a verdict. A second trial began on January 19, 1993. On February 9, 1993 the petitioner was found guilty of murder and of carrying a pistol without a permit and on March 28, 1993, the petitioner received a total effective sentence of thirty five years imprisonment for said offense.

The Appellate Court of Connecticut found the following to be true:

Four young African-American males, including the defendant, approached Gamble on foot. An argument ensued between Gamble and the defendant, while Preston stood fifteen to twenty feet away. Preston recognized the defendant and noted that he was wearing a white shirt and black pants. The argument between the victim and the defendant continued and, at a time that Preston was looking the other way, Preston heard gunshots. When Preston turned, he saw the defendant standing in the middle of the street shooting at Gamble. Gamble died as a result of his injuries.

The New Haven police were notified. Detective Joseph Howard observed the body of the victim lying in the street. Howard overheard some onlookers comment that the people responsible for the shooting had fled down Argyle Street toward Dixwell Avenue. While Howard was canvassing the neighborhood for possible witnesses, Carol Cheek motioned him to the rear of a building, and provided him with information that led him to check outside the defendant's home for a faded red compact car.

Detectives Anthony DiLullo and John Greene were also dispatched to the shooting scene and arrived at about 9:25 p.m. Howard called DiLullo and Greene over to his car to meet Cheek. Cheek told the officers that earlier in the evening she had heard gunshots and had seen four young black men running from the area where she had heard the shots. The men entered a faded red or maroon automobile parked on Dixwell Avenue. Cheek identified the defendant as one of the men she had seen running. He lived across the street from her, and she had known him for about twenty years. Cheek also told the officers she had seen the defendant with the maroon automobile on other occasions, and that it was normally parked outside his house on Dixwell Avenue.

Later that evening, Howard observed a faded Buick Skyhawk in front of the defendant's house. The next evening, at about 11 p.m., Howard stopped the Skyhawk after the defendant and another man entered the vehicle and began to drive away. Howard arrested the defendant, not for the shooting, but on unrelated pending warrants.

Preston was contacted by the police several days later regarding the shooting. He reviewed a tray of photographs of black males and selected the defendant's photograph as that of the person who had shot the victim.

On May 10, 1990, DiLullo and Greene tape-recorded a statement from Cheek at her apartment. On May 16, Cheek met with the detectives to read and review her statement. She read and corrected her statement, initialed each correction and signed the last page.

At trial, Cheek testified that she did not remember being outside her house on May 8. She also stated that she did not approach Howard that night, that she did not recall whether she gave the police a taped statement on May 10, and that looking at the transcript of the statement did not help because she could not read. She acknowledged that the signature on the statement was hers, although she did not remember signing it. Cheek listened to the tape recording of the statement, but denied that the voice was hers.

On cross-examination, Cheek said that two officers were putting pressure on her to provide information about the shooting. On redirect examination, although Cheek said she had no recollection of the events of May 8, she did recall trying to get herself and her children out of the way of gunshots.

The defendant's first trial on the same two counts ended in a mistrial. At the first trial, Cheek's statement was admitted as a full exhibit and was read to the jury. In the statement, Cheek said that on May 8, at about 10 p.m., she had heard gunshots and had seen the defendant and three people she did not know run to a car parked in front of the laundromat. The defendant was wearing black pants and a white shirt. The car was an older, burgundy model. She recognized the defendant because she had known him for twenty years. Cheek testified that the police were "chasing after her" following the incident, and that Detective Green had come to her house several times. She also said that he had stopped the tape several times during her statement to tell her what to say, and that the statement was not true.

At trial, Donnie Andrews testified that minutes before the shooting he had seen the defendant with three African-American men in a maroon car. After the victim left, Andrews began walking home when he heard gunshots. He and Bellamy went back to Shelton Avenue, arriving shortly before the police. At about 3 a.m. on May 9, Andrews gave a taped statement to the police. He selected the defendant's photograph from a tray of about 150 photographs of black men as that of the person he had seen arguing with the victim.

The defendant testified on his own behalf and raised an alibi defense. He testified that he did not recall all of his activities of May 8, but that, at some time after dark, he drove to First Calvary Baptist Church to look for his brother Chuck. He admitted that he was driving a cranberry Skyhawk. He did not recall the time he arrived at the church. While inside the church, the defendant saw Chuck, Randy Hodges, and the Reverend Boisy Kimber. The defendant knew Hodges, but he was not a friend. On cross-examination, the defendant said that Hodges was in jail at the time of trial.
I

The defendant claims that, on three separate occasions, the trial court improperly denied the defendant his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him as guaranteed under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the constitution. The court first refused to permit him to review Andrews' juvenile records. In the other two instances, the court prohibited cross-examination of Green and DiLullo regarding alleged instances of misconduct in other unrelated prosecutions.

The sixth amendment to the United States constitution provides in pertinent part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . ."

"Although the defendant has framed his claim under both the state and federal constitutions, he has not provided an independent analysis of our state constitutional provisions. In the absence of any such analysis by the defendant in this case, we confine our analysis to a discussion of his rights under the federal constitution. State v. Pinnock, 220 Conn. 765, 776 n. 3, 601 A.2d 521 (1992); Phillips v. Warden, 220 Conn. 112, 131 n. 15, 595 A.2d 1356 (1991). Our "declination, however, does not mean that we are not able to review [a state constitutional claim] if we choose to do so." State v. Geisler, 25 Conn. App. 282, 283-84 n. 2, 594 A.2d 985 (1991), aff'd, 222 Conn. 672, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992).

The following additional facts are necessary to resolve this claim. Prior to Andrews' testimony, the defendant sought permission to review Andrews' juvenile records. The trial court reviewed the records in camera and declined to disclose them to the defendant. The court stated that the records contained no adjudications, but did reflect both dismissed and pending juvenile cases. With regard to the dismissed cases, the court reviewed not only the files but also the underlying police reports. The court found that there was nothing in the records "that would be probative in the issue of truth or veracity."

The defendant claims that the denial of access to Andrews' juvenile records was erroneous because it prevented him from impeaching Andrews on the basis of bias and also from introducing prior acts of misconduct directly relevant to Andrews' credibility. "


"The defendant next claims that the trial court improperly restricted the defendant's cross-examination of Greene and DiLullo in violation of his right to confrontation."

"DiLullo was recalled by the state and questioned regarding the circumstances surrounding the taking of Cheek's statement. The defendant argued, outside the presence of the jury, that DiLullo was the defendant in three pending federal civil rights actions that included allegations of coercion and intimidation."

See: https://casetext.com/case/state-v-streater-13

Outcome: Streater's conviction was affirmed on appeal.

Streater was released from prison in December 2017.

On September 13, 2021, Streater applied for a pardon from the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles (BOPP). On April 6, 2022, the pardon board granted Streater an absolute pardon.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: