170 Conn. App. 120
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant (J.M.F.) attacked his wife after she served divorce papers, was charged with attempt to commit murder, first‑degree assault, and risk of injury to a child; convicted and sentenced to 15 years.
- Over several years the defendant sought to assert a mental disease or defect affirmative defense and engaged (and replaced) various experts; the trial court repeatedly ordered disclosure of expert reports under Practice Book rules.
- The state sought a court‑ordered psychiatric exam (its expert Schechter); the defendant appeared but refused to sign the examiner’s consent/authorization form; the court found repeated dilatory tactics and precluded the mental disease or defect defense as sanction.
- The defendant also (1) moved to represent himself and later withdrew that waiver, (2) pursued multiple interlocutory appeals (all dismissed), and (3) sought appointment of a special public defender and other relief which the court denied.
- At trial the court declined requested jury instructions on renunciation and diminished capacity. The defendant appealed raising seven claims; the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (J.M.F.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Preclusion sanction for refusing to sign consent for state's psychiatric exam | Sanction appropriate: repeated delays, noncompliance with disclosure rules justified preclusion | Refusal was technical; preclusion unconstitutionally barred presentation of mental‑disease defense and violated due process | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; refusal was part of dilatory pattern and sanctions were proportionate (disclosure rules + Tutson factors applied) |
| 2. Waiver of right to counsel / Faretta waiver | Court conducted adequate Faretta canvass; invocation was clear and waiver was knowing | Invocation equivocal; waiver not knowing/voluntary | Affirmed: defendant made a clear, unequivocal request and knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waived counsel; standby counsel appointed |
| 3. Sua sponte competency evaluation | No substantial evidence of incompetence to trigger court action | Court should have ordered competency hearing based on defendant’s statements, meds, prior commitment, and alleged expert concern | Affirmed: no substantial evidence presented to raise reasonable doubt about competency; presumption of competence stands (statutory/constitutional standard) |
| 4. State interference with access to funds/counsel of choice | No state action deprived defendant of counsel or funds; factual record contradicts defendant’s claim | Prosecutor failed to secure release of assets (writ of mandamus), impeding ability to hire counsel/experts and denying due process | Affirmed: trial court found no denial of counsel of choice or access to funds; defendant did not overcome factual finding |
| 5. Trial during interlocutory appeal / alleged automatic appellate stay | Trial court correctly concluded the interlocutory appeals did not create an enforceable stay under Practice Book §61‑13/Curcio | Filing interlocutory appeal invoked automatic stay; trial was void ab initio | Affirmed: appeals were from nonappealable interlocutory orders; Curcio test not met, so no automatic stay; trial proceedings valid |
| 6. Failure to appoint special public defender despite limited funds | Special public defender unnecessary because defendant not indigent; court acted within discretion | Case was extraordinary (complex, expensive mental‑disease defense) and court should have appointed special public defender | Affirmed: defendant found not indigent; no extraordinary circumstance shown that required appointment under Practice Book §44‑4 |
| 7. Denial of jury instructions (renunciation and diminished capacity) | No evidentiary foundation for either instruction; renunciation occurred after attempt completed; no evidence defendant lacked specific intent | Evidence of distress, FMRI and expert reports, suicidal ideation warranted instructions | Affirmed: no reasonable evidentiary basis for renunciation (attempt completed) or diminished capacity (no proof defendant lacked specific intent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (defendant may waive counsel and proceed pro se if waiver is knowing and intelligent)
- State v. Tutson, 278 Conn. 715 (Conn. 2006) (factors for weighing discovery noncompliance against defendant's right to present a defense)
- State v. Lovelace, 191 Conn. 545 (Conn. 1983) (court may exclude expert testimony for failure to comply with mental‑defense disclosure rules)
- State v. Dort, 315 Conn. 151 (Conn. 2014) (standards for when competency to stand trial must be inquired into and a competency hearing ordered)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (Conn. 1983) (two‑prong test for immediate appealability of interlocutory orders)
- State v. Fielding, 296 Conn. 26 (Conn. 2010) (application of Curcio and final‑judgment rule in criminal interlocutory appeals)
- State v. Wang, 312 Conn. 222 (Conn. 2014) (indigent self‑represented defendants may be entitled to publicly funded expert/investigative services when reasonably necessary)