State v. Fortin, 196 Conn.App. 805

On July 3, 2015, Michael Fortin returned to a lakeside and, after an earlier verbal dispute, shot Jason Marchand; Marchand died and Fortin fled, later disposing of the gun and motorcycle.
Investigation linked Fortin to several prior incidents involving the same firearm (theft of the gun, discharge on Hop River State Park Trail, pointing the gun at a person, and other discharges between summers 2014–2015).
Fortin moved in limine to preclude those prior-misconduct incidents and offered an unsigned stipulation that he fired the gun that killed the victim; the state declined the stipulation and the court ruled some misconduct evidence admissible to prove identity.
The state had conceded pretrial that a separate incident (Fortin shooting his girlfriend Fandacone in the eye with a flare gun) was inadmissible in its case-in-chief; during trial a witness (Mitchell) inadvertently referenced that flare-gun incident, the court sustained an objection and gave a curative instruction, but Fortin moved for a mistrial which was denied.
Trooper Tassinari testified she was told by the town first selectman that no temporary thirty- or sixty-day town permit had been issued; Fortin did not object at trial and later testified he was "illegally carrying" the gun. The jury convicted Fortin of first‑degree manslaughter with a firearm (lesser included offense) and carrying a pistol without a permit.

Issue	State's Argument	Fortin's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-misconduct evidence to prove identity	Incidents involved the same gun and were highly probative of identity; the prosecution may present its chosen evidence; unsigned stipulation was not a binding admission	Offered to stipulate he fired the gun that killed the victim, so prior-misconduct evidence was unnecessary and unduly prejudicial (citing Old Chief)	Affirmed. Evidence admissible to prove identity; Old Chief distinguishable because this case required proving the substantive act (identity) and Fortin’s offer was not a judicial admission
Motion for mistrial after witness referenced flare-gun incident	Reference was unsolicited, isolated, and promptly struck; curative instruction cured any prejudice	Reference to shooting girlfriend with a flare gun was highly prejudicial (victim’s glass eye visible), warranting mistrial	Denied. Court did not abuse discretion; immediate curative instruction and isolated nature of remark cured prejudice
Confrontation/Hearsay — trooper’s testimony recounting first selectman’s statement about permits	Any testimonial-hearsay issue is harmless: Fortin didn’t object, didn’t challenge the charge, and admitted illegally carrying	Testimony was testimonial hearsay and violated confrontation clause	Reviewed under Golding; even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Fortin admitted illegal possession and did not contest the permit charge

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (limits use of prejudicial proof when defendant offers an unequivocal stipulation to an element that the jury needs only generally to know)
State v. Abdus-Sabur, 190 Conn. App. 589 (2019) (framework for reviewing admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence)
State v. Holley, 327 Conn. 576 (2018) (standards for reviewing a trial court’s denial of a mistrial and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (criteria for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
Duncan v. Mill Management Co. of Greenwich, Inc., 308 Conn. 1 (2013) (curative instructions can mitigate harm from improperly admitted evidence)