State v. Dorlette
2013 WL 5989777
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Faroulh Dorlette, an incarcerated prisoner, assaulted correction officers Brunetti and Correa at Northern Correctional Institution in Oct. 2009.
- Approximately 35 minutes after the altercation, Dorlette told Officer Zina that he would assault staff again; Zina recorded the statement.
- The State sought to introduce the postaltercation statement as evidence of intent/consciousness of guilt; Dorlette moved in limine to exclude as prejudicial, which the court denied.
- Two versions of the statement were admitted: a written report by Zina and an oral version elicited on direct examination; no objection was raised to the oral testimony.
- The jury found Dorlette guilty on two counts of assault on public safety personnel and as a persistent serious felony offender; he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment plus ten years special parole, consecutive to other sentences.
- Dorlette appeals the admission of the postaltercation statements, arguing improper prejudice versus probative value under the evidentiary balancing rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of postaltercation statements violated § 4-3 balancing | Dorlette argues statements were highly prejudicial and not probative | Dorlette contends statements were probative of intent/consciousness of guilt | No abuse; statements had probative value and not unduly prejudicial. |
| Whether the oral direct-examination version of the statement was admissible | Dorlette challenges the reliability and prejudicial impact | Oral version equally probative and properly admitted | Admissible; probative value supported by other evidence; no objection to testimony. |
| Whether the written report version admission was harmless error | Harmless only if there is no prejudice | Harmless given other probative evidence | Harmless error in light of corroborating testimony and earlier admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rinaldi, 220 Conn. 345 (1991) (probative/prejudicial balancing guided by court discretion)
- State v. Smith, 275 Conn. 205 (2005) (probative/prejudicial balancing in evidence rulings)
- State v. Cosby, 99 Conn. App. 164 (2007) (unraised objections can prejudice trial outcomes)
- State v. Stovall, 142 Conn. App. 562 (2013) (harmlessness of cumulative evidence typical)
- State v. George J., 280 Conn. 551 (2006) (burden to show evidentiary ruling harmful)