State v. Frazier, 181 Conn. App. 1

Background

On Aug. 20, 2011, police found John A. Frazier slumped in the driver’s seat of a running car stopped in a left‑turn lane; bystanders had attempted to rouse him and called 911.
Officer Gosselin arrived, roused Frazier, asked about medical issues; Frazier said he was diabetic but would not discuss medication and refused ambulance evaluation.
Frazier admitted to having had “a couple of drinks” and being “very tired,” was unsteady, and failed three standardized field sobriety tests; he refused a Breathalyzer and was arrested.
Officer Chase inventoried the vehicle and initially testified outside voir dire that he found a plastic cup with ice in the center console, smelled the cup and believed it contained alcohol; the court initially excluded the inventory form and related testimony.
Defense counsel later asked Chase on cross whether any contraband/drugs were found; the court then allowed limited redirect testimony that Chase smelled the drink and discarded it (ruling that defense had opened the door).
Trial resulted in a guilty verdict for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (alcohol); post‑trial plea/conviction made him a second offender. The defendant appealed on three main grounds (insufficiency of evidence, evidentiary ruling, and alleged infringement of the right to testify).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Frazier)	Held
Sufficiency: Was there evidence that alcohol caused impairment?	The totality of evidence (Frazier’s admission of drinking, poor performance on sobriety tests, officers’ observations and odors, refusal to take breath test, demeanor/pleading for leniency) proved intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.	Admission that he drank lacked probative value because timing was not established; medical condition (diabetic emergency) could explain his state.	Affirmed — jury reasonably could infer alcohol caused impairment from the cumulative evidence.
Admission of inventory/cup testimony: Did defense “open the door” to Chase’s testimony about the cup?	Defense’s cross questioning about whether any contraband or drugs were found invited the state to rebut the implication that nothing incriminating was discovered; limited redirect was proper to cure unfair impression.	The court had previously excluded the inventory and testimony as unfair because the cup was discarded and not tested; allowing the testimony after defense’s questioning was prejudicial and unfair.	Affirmed — trial court acted within discretion: defense opened the door and the narrow redirect did not substantially affect the verdict.
Right to testify/canvass timing: Did the court improperly canvass/force a waiver before close of prosecution’s case?	Court properly canvassed after defense counsel indicated his client would not testify and the defendant personally confirmed the decision; defense counsel had asked that canvass be done early.	Canvass before the prosecution had finished was premature and could chill defendant’s right to testify; waiver may not have been fully knowing/voluntary.	Affirmed — defendant waived challenge (defense counsel asked for early canvass); alternatively, no constitutional violation because defendant did not affirmatively state he wanted to testify or was unaware he could.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Calabrese, 279 Conn. 393 (Conn. 2006) (evidentiary sufficiency reviewed viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Morelli, 293 Conn. 147 (Conn. 2009) (defining intoxication standard under § 14-227a)
State v. Fontaine, 134 Conn. App. 224 (Conn. App. 2012) (statements acknowledging wrongdoing can support intoxication inference)
State v. Brown, 309 Conn. 469 (Conn. 2013) (doctrine of "opening the door" and scope of permissible rebuttal)
State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97 (Conn. 2017) (harmless error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary rulings)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (preservation/Golding test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (modification of Golding doctrine)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (defendant’s constitutional right to testify)