179 Conn. App. 461
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Esquilin was on probation with a special condition forbidding drug/alcohol use and requiring random urine testing; probation began after a 2013 release.
- Between August and December 2013 the defendant submitted multiple urine samples; out-of-state labs reported several positives for THC to the Office of Adult Probation.
- At the April 2, 2015 probation revocation hearing the state offered probation officer Amanti’s testimony about the drug results and introduced the lab reports as exhibits; the lab analysts who performed testing did not testify and are not identified in the record.
- Defense counsel objected to Amanti testifying and to admission of the lab reports as unreliable double hearsay and under Bullcoming as a Confrontation Clause problem, but did not expressly argue a due process claim or request the balancing test under Morrissey/Shakir.
- The trial court overruled objections, admitted the reports, found the defendant had violated probation by a preponderance of the evidence (including the positive tests and new criminal conduct), revoked probation, and sentenced him to four years.
- On appeal the defendant claimed the court violated his due process right by admitting the drug reports without live testimony from the analysts; the Appellate Court held the claim was unpreserved and the record inadequate for Golding review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Esquilin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of out-of-state lab reports and Amanti’s testimony violated due process by denying defendant opportunity to confront analysts | Claim not preserved; defendant never argued at hearing that admission violated due process or asked court to apply balancing test; record inadequate to review | Admission denied due process/right to confront because analysts who performed tests did not testify (relying on Bullcoming/Crawford principles) | Not preserved; record inadequate under Golding because defense did not raise a due process objection at trial and state had no opportunity to explain why analysts weren’t produced; claim not reviewable and judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Polanco, 165 Conn. App. 563 (Conn. App. 2016) (unpreserved confrontation/due process claims at probation revocation were not reviewable under Golding where record lacked balancing information)
- State v. Shakir, 130 Conn. App. 458 (Conn. App. 2011) (probation revocation confrontation issues require court balancing of defendant’s interest vs. government reasons for not producing witness)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (scientist who did not perform or certify test cannot satisfy Confrontation Clause via surrogate testimony)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay requires unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination under Sixth Amendment)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (minimum due process protections at probation/parole revocation hearings)
- State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (Conn. 2006) (first Golding prong — appellate review requires an adequate trial record)