State v. Carter, 320 Conn. 564

Background

Defendant James P. Carter, Jr. was convicted of murder and of criminal violation of a restraining order for the fatal stabbing of his former girlfriend on February 14, 2009.
The state introduced an ex parte restraining order dated January 8, 2009, which by its terms would have expired January 16, 2009; the state did not proffer the later signed restraining order from January 16, 2009 at trial.
The Appellate Court affirmed the convictions, concluding the jury could reasonably infer that a restraining order was in effect on the date of the killing, that it prohibited assaulting the victim, and that the defendant knew its terms.
The Appellate Court relied on the defendant’s own statements admitting a restraining order existed, police statements/actions indicating an order was in effect, and the terms of the ex parte order (which barred contact and assault) to support reasonable inference about the later order’s terms.
The defendant sought Supreme Court review arguing the Appellate Court contravened the best evidence rule; the Supreme Court limited review to whether there was sufficient evidence of a restraining order in effect that prohibited assault.
The Supreme Court dismissed the certified appeal as improvidently granted, noting the defendant narrowed his position on appeal and conceding that originals are not categorically required when other evidence establishes a document’s terms beyond a reasonable doubt; the Court did not decide the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence that a restraining order was in effect on the date of the crime?	State: Jury could infer an order was in effect from defendant’s statements and police actions.	Carter: Insufficient proof because the operative restraining order was not proffered; best evidence rule and document terms uncertain.	Appeal dismissed as improvidently granted; Supreme Court took no position on correctness of Appellate Court’s conclusion.
Could the terms of the (unproduced) restraining order be proved by inference from earlier ex parte order?	State: Ex parte order’s terms and defendant’s continued conduct support inference the later order had same prohibitions.	Carter: Speculative to infer substantive terms without the later order; best evidence concerns.	Not decided by Supreme Court; Appellate Court had upheld inference but Supreme Court dismissed review.
Was defendant shown to have knowledge of the order’s terms?	State: Defendant told police he knew of a "full" restraining order and that he could not send the victim anything.	Carter: Denies sufficient proof of knowledge of specific prohibitions (e.g., assault).	Not decided by Supreme Court; Appellate Court found sufficient evidence of knowledge.
Did the best evidence rule require production of the original restraining order?	State: Other testimonial and documentary evidence can suffice to prove terms beyond a reasonable doubt.	Carter: Best evidence and precedent require original when effective date and terms are at issue.	Supreme Court dismissed certification; noted defendant conceded originals not always required, so question left unresolved.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Carter, 151 Conn. App. 527 (2014) (Appellate Court opinion affirming convictions and permitting inference of an effective restraining order and its terms)
Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 240 Conn. 547 (1997) (dismissal of certified appeal as improvidently granted does not express approval or disapproval of lower court decision)
New London v. Foss & Bourke, Inc., 276 Conn. 522 (2005) (same principle regarding dismissals of certified appeals)
Getty Properties Corp. v. ATKR, LLC, 315 Conn. 387 (2015) (judicial notice may be taken of files in other cases)
Jewett v. Jewett, 265 Conn. 669 (2003) (judicial notice of court files in other proceedings)