State v. Daniel G.
84 A.3d 9
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- On April 23, 2009, Officer Nott responded to a CVS collision in New London and encountered Daniel G. in a van with his child.
- Daniel questioned the officer and then sped away in the van after Nott requested assistance, prompting a pursuit by Sergeant Bergeson.
- Bergeson pursued with lights and sirens; Daniel drove through several streets and stopped near his residence after a brief chase.
- Daniel was charged by amended substitute information with increasing speed to escape/elude an officer under § 14-223(b) and two counts of interfering with an officer under § 53a-167a; risk of injury to a child was later resolved in trial.
- The jury found Daniel not guilty of risk of injury to a child, but guilty of attempting to escape/elude and of interfering with an officer; the court sentenced him accordingly.
- Daniel challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, vagueness of § 14-223(b) as applied, failure to charge entrapment and first amendment defenses, and prosecutorial impropriety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of § 14-223(b) evidence | Video does not conclusively negate acceleration or intent to elude. | Video conclusively shows no acceleration or intent to elude Bergeson. | Sufficient evidence supports conviction; video not conclusive. |
| Constitutional vagueness as applied to § 14-223(b) | Statute provides sufficient guidance; no arbitrary enforcement | Failure to require officer lawfulness creates risk of abuse; need minimal guidelines | Vagueness claim fails; statute valid as applied. |
| Failure to charge entrapment and first amendment defenses | No entrapment or protected speech issues supported; instructions not required | Evidence supports entrapment and protected speech as defenses | Court properly declined entrapment and first amendment instructions; not required. |
| Prosecutorial impropriety | Minor improper remarks did not affect fairness | Improper statements affected trial fairness | Overall, defendant not deprived of fair trial; improprieties cured. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Browne, 84 Conn. App. 351 (Conn. App. 2004) (elements of § 14-223(b) and general intent to escape)
- State v. Santos, 267 Conn. 495 (Conn. 2004) (video evidence and suppression issues in pursuit cases)
- State v. Stephens, 301 Conn. 791 (Conn. 2011) ( vagueness framework and general guidance requirement)
- State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (Conn. 2010) (as-applied vagueness and core meaning framework)
- State v. Golodner, 305 Conn. 330 (Conn. 2012) (entrapment instruction when evidence supports defense)
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (prosecutorial impropriety factors; fair trial standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (video evidence can preclude conflicting versions in summary judgment)