A Connecticut man convicted of murdering and robbing two women in 2007 to support a drug habit should have been afforded a hearing concerning his motion to dismiss his attorney before his habeas petition was denied, the state's appellate court announced Friday.

In a unanimous published opinion, a three-judge panel said Norman Haughey had filed a motion seeking to dismiss his attorney, Jason Goddard, on Dec. 18, 2023, for failing to facilitate his mental health defense. Although Haughey was told days later that there would be a hearing on his motion in January, his habeas petition was denied on Dec. 29, before the hearing could occur, the panel said.

As a result, when it came time for Haughey to discuss his motion, it was improperly denied as moot, the panel said.

"We emphasize that a trial court is obligated to consider and rule on all motions properly before it," wrote Senior Justice Christine E. Keller for the panel, remanding his motion for reconsideration. "We are mindful of the policy of the law to bring about a trial on the merits of a dispute when possible and to secure for the petitioner his day in court."

Had Haughey been permitted to argue that his counsel was ineffective for failing to arrange for a mental health evaluation and refusing to call an expert witness who was to testify about Haughey's mental state, the entire outcome of his habeas petition might have been different, the panel said.

"Had the habeas court considered the merits of the motion to dismiss counsel prior to the issuance of its decision, new counsel may have been appointed who might have pursued a motion to open the evidence or a motion for a mistrial," wrote Justice Keller.

She explained that, as a result, the court would require a decision on Haughey's ineffective counsel motion, and, if the court decided in his favor, his counts concerning the ineffectiveness of an attorney prior to Goddard, as well as his claim of innocence due to newly discovered brain evidence would be reopened as well.

The court wrote that, in addition to failing to present expert testimony for "three claims that required it, [Goddard] did not withdraw the claims related to the failure of trial counsel and first habeas counsel to investigate and present mental health evidence on his behalf or the actual innocence claim."

This meant that the habeas court "ruled on the merits of these claims," and, on the grounds of res judicata, which prevents relitigation, Haughey may be prohibited "from raising related arguments or allegations in a subsequent habeas proceeding," the court said.

"If new counsel is appointed on remand, and that counsel is left only with the possibility of opening the judgment, the petitioner may have obtained nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory," the court said, explaining why those counts should be reopened.

Haughey told the habeas court that he was innocent because, in 2018, magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed "approximately fifteen to eighteen lesions on the brain predominantly on the frontal lobe" that "were likely present during his childhood," which he claimed "affected his judgment and cognitive abilities," the panel recounted.

He testified during his habeas proceedings that he had drug problems and his trial defense had been that he "was 'getting high' somewhere 'in the projects' when the murders had occurred," the panel said. His cocaine and steroid use caused blackouts and rages along with memory lapses, he said, noting that his drug abuse could have impacted his mental state "so profoundly that he actually could not remember committing the crimes," the panel said, summarizing his habeas testimony.​​

Haughey sought a mental health evaluation from Andrew Meisler, a clinical and forensic psychologist, who was to provide testimony regarding his cognition and substance abuse history, but it never came to fruition, according to the panel.

The incarcerated man claimed Goddard was ineffective because he failed to call Meisler as a witness and never arranged for the psychologist to evaluate Haughey. This happened after Haughey had already twice alleged that prior counsel had been ineffective for failing to sufficiently present his mental health defense, according to the panel.

Meisler was to "determine how [Haughey's] substance abuse could have exacerbated his mental health conditions," Justice Keller wrote, explaining that Haughey said Meisler's evaluations would show that, if he were provided proper treatment once he was in custody, his memory would have improved, helping his case.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Friday.

Senior Justice Christine E. Keller and Judges Bethany J. Alvord and Nina F. Elgo sat on the panel for the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Haughey is represented by Michael W. Brown.

The Commissioner of Correction is represented by Timothy F. Costello, John P. Doyle Jr., and Craig P. Nowak.

The case is Norman Haughey v. Commissioner of Correction, AC 47426, in the Connecticut Appellate Court.

--Editing by Dave Trumbore.