140 Conn. App. 455
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Jones was convicted after a jury trial of assaulting a police officer in violation of §53a-167c and speeding to escape in violation of §14-223(b).
- December 12, 2008: police pursued a green Charger; unmarked officers Rivera and Rodriguez, joined by marked Officer Gonzalez, stopped the Charger; Rodriguez fired when the Charger fled and struck him.
- Rodriguez sought treatment at Midstate Medical Center; a treating physician Nguyen-Tan was unavailable, so Dr. Tilden testified and medical records of Rodriguez’s treatment were admitted under business-record hearsay.
- Defendant was identified from a photo array the next day and the Charger’s renter informed police that the defendant had requested the rental.
- Defendant challenged (a) allowing courtroom viewing of dashboard video during deliberations, (b) admitting medical-records through a non-testifying physician, and (c) not reviewing Rodriguez’s personnel file in camera for exculpatory material; court denied all challenges.
- Trial court sentenced defendant to 78 months for assault and 1 year for escape, to be served concurrently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video replay during deliberations was proper | Prosecution argues video was submitted and viewable, satisfying Practice Book §42-23. | Jones argues mandatory submission to jury required and courtroom replay violated rules. | Court did not abuse discretion; video viewable in courtroom complied with practice rules. |
| Medical records and confrontation clause | Testimony by supervising physician about Rodriguez’s injury relied on medical records. | Admission of records violated Crawford and the confrontation clause. | Medical records were non-testimonial; no US or CT constitutional violation. Bullcoming/ Melendez-Diaz distinctions upheld. |
| In camera review of Rodriguez's personnel file | Defense sought credibility-impeachment material. | Requests needed a specific basis; fishing expedition rejected. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no entitlement to in camera review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (forensic reports as testimonial when created for evidentiary purposes)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (automated lab certificates; testimonial nature)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause; testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
- State v. Batances, 265 Conn. 493 (Conn. 2003) (police personnel-file confidentiality; in camera review standards)
- State v. Erickson, 297 Conn. 164 (Conn. 2010) (limits on in camera review; credibility impeachment)