167 Conn. App. 600
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant stabbed three victims (G, P, R) at a Hartford residence around 2 a.m. on July 28, 2012; R intervened and was stabbed; P was stabbed multiple times, left paralyzed, and a no-contact protective order against the defendant was in effect for P.
- Police observed blood and injuries; victims transported to hospital; defendant arrested with bloodstains on clothing and a bloodstain on his hand; DNA and blood samples were collected for testing.
- Forensic testing: P’s DNA contributed to blood on clothing and the hand swab; no DNA from G or R detected on tested samples; not all stains were tested and some DNA can be masked by more potent sources.
- Indictment charged three counts of first-degree assault and one count of a protective-order violation; defendant also charged with two probation violations; convicted on all counts and sentenced to 21 years plus.
- Defendant moved for a new trial arguing that absence of G’s DNA rendered the G-assault physically impossible; court denied. During suppression hearing, P received a strong perjury admonition; defendant appeals on both grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of the new-trial motion was an abuse of discretion | Defense contends DNA absence makes G’s assault physically impossible | State offered explanations: selective testing and DNA overshadowing; verdict supported by eyewitnesses | No abuse; reasonable interpretations supported guilt despite missing DNA |
| Whether the court’s perjury admonition violated due process and right to present a defense | Defense asserts admonition coerced P and deprived defense of exculpatory testimony | Court improvised coercive admonition; deprived defendant of evidence | Not a violation; admonition did not drive P off the stand; defense opportunity to cross-examine remained |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ward, 76 Conn. App. 779 (2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for setting aside verdict; weight of the evidence)
- Bolmer v. McKulsky, 74 Conn. App. 499 (2003) (verdict stands if reasonably supported by evidence)
- Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972) (perjury admonition can be coercive; cross-reference to witness intimidation)
- State v. Tilus, 157 Conn. App. 453 (2015) (court may warn a witness about potential perjury; not coercive here)
- Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (1986) (defendant may cross-examine suppression-witness inconsistencies)
- Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standard for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Hammond, 221 Conn. 264 (1992) (relevance to physical-impossibility-based reversals)
- Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (2014) (Golding-prong adequacy and review)