184 Conn. App. 492
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Steven Durdek was convicted by a jury of murder, burglary, sexual assault, arson and tampering with evidence; felony murder count later vacated; effective sentence 115 years.
- DNA from an interior doorknob and a vaginal swab linked the defendant to the scene; one doorknob match was highly discriminating ("one in seven billion").
- A key state witness, John Paul Torres, testified that Durdek confessed to him on two occasions; Torres disclosed two adult convictions (larceny and burglary).
- Defense sought to impeach Torres by asking about specific misconduct in Torres’ juvenile records (alleged burglary of his father’s house and theft of keys); the trial court barred asking those specific questions as cumulative of Torres’ adult convictions.
- Defense did not (1) ask to question Torres outside the jury’s presence to create a record, nor (2) make an offer of proof as to how Torres would have answered the juvenile-misconduct questions.
- The trial court allowed other impeachment lines (inconsistent statements to police, timing of reporting, and mention of adult convictions); appellate court held the record inadequate to review the exclusion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Durdek's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by precluding questions about Torres’ juvenile misconduct for impeachment | Questions about juvenile acts were cumulative of admitted adult convictions and prejudicial/confusing; juvenile records lacked adjudication | Juvenile acts showed a continuous pattern of dishonesty beyond adult convictions and were probative of credibility | Court held record inadequate to review because defense failed to make offer of proof showing how Torres would have answered; ruling therefore not reviewable |
| Whether exclusion implicated Sixth Amendment confrontation/right to present a defense | If evidentiary, no constitutional violation; state argues record inadequate for Golding review | Exclusion deprived Durdek of opportunity to expose witness bias/untruthfulness, implicating confrontation clause | Court treated claim as evidentiary; even if constitutional, record insufficient under Golding because no offer of proof; claim fails |
| Whether extrinsic evidence (juvenile records) could be admitted if Torres denied misconduct | State: extrinsic proof of specific acts for impeachment is inadmissible under Conn. Code Evid. §6-6(b)(2) | Durdek: could have used records to refresh or prove prior acts (relying on Demers) | Court: extrinsic evidence inadmissible for impeachment; Demers distinguishable (involved substantive issue/rape‑shield exception) — no extrinsic proof allowed here |
| Whether any error was harmful | State: even if error, other strong evidence (DNA, corroborating witness timing, FB message, confessions) makes any error harmless | Durdek: additional impeachment could have affected credibility of Torres’ confession testimony | Court: independent, strong evidence and other impeachment avenues make it improbable exclusion affected outcome; harmless/not shown to be harmful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (establishes four‑part test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Holley, 327 Conn. 576 (discusses interplay of evidentiary rules and Sixth Amendment right to present a defense)
- Demers v. State, 209 Conn. 143 (victim’s prior acts admissible when relevant to substantive issue; rape‑shield context)
- State v. Crumpton, 202 Conn. 224 (larceny/burglary bear on credibility/untruthfulness)
- State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 (allocation of burden for harmlessness depending on constitutional magnitude of error)
- State v. Milner, 206 Conn. 512 (arrest without conviction generally inadmissible to attack credibility)