State v. Lee, 138 Conn. App. 420

On Sept. 22, 2005, Lee’s 1997 Ford Expedition crashed on Reeves Road in Ellington; he was unconscious inside the vehicle and had a blood alcohol content of 0.17 at Hartford Hospital.
Responders found no other occupants; Lee claimed he must have fallen asleep before the crash.
After the accident, Figella agreed to take responsibility and signed an affidavit falsely stating he drove; Swartout, Lee’s attorney, was involved.
Lee went to trial; the jury convicted him of two OUI counts and a license-suspension count, plus conspiracy to make a false statement, conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence, and tampering with a witness; he later pled nolo contentere to a persistent-offender charge.
Lee challenged (1) admission of a blood-alcohol document under 14-227a(k) without authentication, (2) sufficiency of evidence, (3) grant of his counsel’s withdrawal, (4) conspiracy convictions, and (5) jury instructions on conspiracies; the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of the blood test under 14-227a(k) without authentication	State argues §14-227a(k) provides independent admissibility; no separate hospital/medical-record exception needed.	Lee contends the hospital record is hearsay and not authenticated; regulations or foundation required.	Admissible under §14-227a(k); four conditions satisfied; commissioner-regulations not required.
Sufficiency of evidence for operation and OUI/ suspension	State contends circumstantial evidence established Lee as operator and intoxication.	Lee argues insufficient to prove he operated the vehicle and other elements.	Evidence, including position at scene and lack of other occupants, could support operating beyond reasonable doubt.
Double jeopardy from two conspiracy convictions	Two conspiracies arose from same unlawful agreement; may be upheld separately under Chicano.	Convictions should merge and sentence vacated per Chicano (Rutledge); issues may be revisited.	Conspiracies to fabricate physical evidence and false statement merged; vacate lesser conviction and remand for resentencing.
Counsel withdrawal and right to counsel of choice	State asserts withdrawal was proper given potential witness-conflict; no Sixth Amendment violation.	Lee claims withdrawal infringed his right to counsel of choice.	Withdrawal was not an abuse of discretion; no Sixth Amendment violation.

State v. Cavallo, 200 Conn. 664 (Conn. 1986) (intent to induce a witness focuses on mental state of defendant)
State v. Coleman, 83 Conn. App. 672 (Conn. App. 2004) (construes Tampering statutory elements; holds mental state matters)
State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (Conn. 2005) (double jeopardy when two conspiracies arise from same agreement; merge convictions)
State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699 (Conn. 1991) (merger/remand remedy for multiple conspiracy convictions; control of sentencing)
State v. Fernandez, 254 Conn. 637 (Conn. 2000) (right to counsel of choice evaluated under abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (test for unpreserved constitutional claims)