State v. Acampora
169 A.3d 820
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph C. Acampora, Jr. was charged with assault of a disabled person (third degree), disorderly conduct, and interfering with an emergency call; tried to a jury and convicted of the first two counts and acquitted of the third.
- Defendant repeatedly sought continuances to retain counsel but ultimately declared he would represent himself; the court canvassed him on February 23, 2012 and found his waiver of counsel knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- At trial the defendant proceeded pro se; after the defense rested the court concluded evidence was closed; days later defendant sought to reopen the evidence to admit a voicemail (or the testimony of a battalion chief) undermining the victim’s claim that an ambulance had been dispatched.
- Trial court denied the motion to open the evidence as untimely and because the material would be inadmissible or collateral; defendant appealed claiming denial of right to counsel (invalid waiver) and denial of right to present a defense.
- Appellate court (this opinion) affirmed: it held (1) the February 23 canvass satisfied constitutional requirements and no duty to canvass arose earlier because defendant did not clearly and unequivocally invoke self-representation until that date, and (2) the proffered voice mail/testimony was inadmissible hearsay or collateral impeachment and its exclusion did not violate the right to present a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court violated Sixth Amendment by allowing defendant to appear/proceed without counsel at arraignment/plea discussions without canvass | Court should have canvassed whenever defendant appeared at critical stages unrepresented; waiver was not valid | Duty to canvass arises only after a clear, unequivocal invocation of the right to self-representation; here that did not occur until Feb 23, 2012 | No violation; no duty to canvass before defendant clearly invoked self-representation; canvass on Feb 23 was adequate |
| Whether defendant clearly and unequivocally invoked right to self-representation prior to Feb 23 (e.g., Nov 29) | Defendant later argued he invoked right earlier and court should have canvassed then | State observed defendant did not clearly invoke until Feb 23; issue raised first in reply brief | Unreviewable: defendant raised the earlier-invocation claim first in reply brief; no exceptional circumstances to excuse waiver |
| Adequacy of canvass on Feb 23 (did court sufficiently explain charges and dangers of self-representation) | Canvass was constitutionally inadequate—court failed to explain elements and specific dangers | Canvass covered statutory charges, penalties, defendant’s education/experience, and general dangers of self-representation; specific element discussion not required | Held adequate: court’s canvass satisfied constitutional minimums; no requirement to detail every element or a fixed script |
| Whether denial of motion to open evidence (to present voicemail or battalion chief) violated right to present a defense | Excluding witness/testimony deprived defendant of objective third-party impeachment of victim and prejudiced defense | Proffered voicemail was hearsay; if treated as live witness the issue was collateral impeachment (whether ambulance was sent) and extrinsic evidence on collateral matter is inadmissible; motion was untimely | Denial affirmed: evidence inadmissible/hearsay or collateral; exclusion did not violate Sixth Amendment/right to present a defense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Braswell, 318 Conn. 815 (Conn. 2015) (discusses standards for waiver of counsel and right to self-representation)
- State v. Pires, 310 Conn. 222 (Conn. 2013) (explains requirement that defendant clearly and unequivocally invoke right to self-representation before court must canvass)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012) (identifies plea negotiations and arraignment among critical stages implicating Sixth Amendment counsel rights)
- State v. Carter, 200 Conn. 607 (Conn. 1986) (trial court discretion in weighing presumption against waiver and in decisions to open evidence)
- State v. Annulli, 309 Conn. 482 (Conn. 2013) (extrinsic impeachment on collateral matters is inadmissible)
- State v. Jose G., 290 Conn. 331 (Conn. 2009) (distinguishes collateral matters and limits extrinsic contradiction of testimony)