131 Conn. App. 275
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Tyrone Brown was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (a)(1) and operating with elevated BAC (a)(2) after a late-night stop on I-95 in which he appeared intoxicated; trooper observed erratic driving, bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, and a cup of tan liquid in the vehicle
- Breath tests at the barracks yielded BACs of 0.188% (2:24 a.m.) and 0.144% (2:59 a.m.) after Miranda rights were administered
- State filed two-count substitute information (a)(1) and (a)(2); defendant later pled nolo contendere to a subsequent-offender charge and the court merged the counts and sentenced him to two years with suspension and probation
- Jury found Brown guilty on both counts; on appeal he challenges (i) severance of counts, (ii) admission of expert testimony about alcohol levels, (iii) exclusion of his wife’s testimony, (iv) admission of his refusal to answer questions, and (v) sufficiency as to elevated BAC
- Trial court denied in limine motion restricting expert testimony to count (a)(2) and issued limiting instructions; on appeal, several challenges were preserved or waived as described in the court’s opinion
- Court affirmed the judgment on all grounds
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of the two offenses | Brown argues severance is required for prejudicial joinder | Severance would prevent prejudice from combining behavior and per se evidence | Severance claim not preserved; affirmed denial of severance on preservation grounds |
| Admission and cumulativeness of expert alcohol-evidence | Powers’ testimony about BAC and related effects is prejudicial when cumulated | Testimony admissible, but prejudicial in cumulative effect under 14-227a(c) | Claim not reviewable/waived; court declined to review under statutory provision; no reversal on this basis |
| Admission of wife’s testimony about intoxication | Wife’s lay testimony should show defendant was under the influence | Testimony irrelevant given timing; trial court acted within discretion | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence deemed irrelevant to timing of arrest; exclusion upheld |
| Admission of defendant’s refusal to answer questions after Miranda (A44 form) | Refusal evidence violated Doyle and should be excluded | State opened the door on redirect; Doyle not implicated; permissible rebuttal | No abuse; redirect/open-door principle applied; Doyle not violated; proper admission |
| Sufficiency of evidence for elevated BAC (a)(2) | Evidence supports elevated BAC | Insufficient to prove (a)(2) tanpa impact on conviction | Not reached; conviction sustained under either count; sufficiency not decided due to other upheld rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Berube, 256 Conn. 742 (2001) (preservation and severance principles in trial court)
- State v. Wright, 58 Conn. App. 136 (2000) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Talton, 197 Conn. 292 (1985) (Doyle-driven silence rule; intermittent assertion of right to remain silent)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (no inference from silence after Miranda warnings in this context)
- Corriveau v. Corriveau, 126 Conn. App. 231 (2011) (redirect scope limited by cross-examination; admissibility grounded in discretion)