158 Conn.App. 256
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- The defendant, John Joseph LaVoie, a paraplegic in a wheelchair, shot his wife Shelly LaVoie during a November 24, 2009 confrontation in their Litchfield home after suspecting an affair.
- LaVoie tracked Shelly via GPS, hired a private investigator, and recorded a romantic encounter with Morey, then confronted Morey and later Shelly about the affair.
- He purchased ammunition, loaded a rifle magazine, attached it to the rifle, pursued Shelly into their bathroom, and ultimately shot her in the leg while her second cell phone was demanded.
- After the shooting, Shelly drove to a hospital; LaVoie admitted to police he had loaded the rifle and shot Shelly and stated he could have killed her but did not want to.
- A jury found LaVoie guilty on two counts of assault in the first degree with an enhancement, and the court sentenced him to a total term of ten years with five years’ probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by excluding Levi’s testimony | LaVoie argues Levi’s testimony was relevant to pain and intoxication | LaVoie contends the court abused its discretion and should have allowed the expert | No abuse; Levi's testimony deemed not relevant and not admissible |
| Whether the court must sua sponte hold an evidentiary hearing on Levi’s offer of proof | Levi’s testimony was relevant and its exclusion implicates fairness | Court should have held a sua sponte hearing if relevance shown | No sua sponte hearing required; offer of proof deemed not relevant |
| Whether the court erred by declining an intoxication instruction | Evidence showed possible intoxication affecting specific intent | Sufficient evidence and lack of expert testimony warranted the instruction | No error; record did not support a reasonable probability of intoxication affecting intent |
| Whether prosecutorial improprieties deprived defendant of a fair trial | Prosecutor misstated evidence and invoked improper inference | Comments were improper and potentially prejudicial; supervisory relief requested | No due process violation; single, non-severe impropriety did not deprive fair trial; supervisory relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 244 Conn. 640 (1998) (trial court not required to hold sua sponte evidentiary hearings absent a request)
- State v. Shaw, 312 Conn. 85 (2014) (offer of proof requires relevance; core rights implications outlined)
- State v. Morales, 71 Conn. App. 790 (2002) (intoxication instruction only if evidence raises reasonable doubt on specific intent)
- State v. Clemons, 168 Conn. 395 (1975) (time of intoxication evidence and lack of expert testimony affect instruction)