State v. Little
138 Conn. App. 106
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Anthony Little assaulted his former girlfriend Carola Demaio at a party in Hartford, cutting her with a pocketknife and pushing her to the floor.
- Ashley, the defendant’s daughter, attempted to call 911; the defendant knocked the cell phone away and left with Demaio.
- Ashley later reported to Hartford police that the defendant slashed Demaio’s cheek and prevented her from calling 911; she also claimed the defendant had threatened officers.
- Demaio sustained a facial injury; there was conflicting testimony about the knife, the extent of injuries, and whether any other party (Ashley) contributed to the injuries.
- Defendant was charged with assault in the second degree under § 53a-60(a)(2) and interfering with an emergency call under § 53a-183b(a) and was convicted after a two‑day trial to the court.
- A recording of Ashley’s 911 call and Ashley’s written police statement were admitted into evidence and later challenged as cumulative and improperly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault in the second degree | Demaio and Ashley’s accounts, plus circumstantial evidence, support intent to injure. | Conflicting testimony and alleged lack of clear intent create reasonable doubt. | Evidence, viewed favorably, supports intent to injure beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for interfering with an emergency call | Ashley’s actions show conscious objective to prevent the 911 call. | Lack of explicit knowledge that Ashley intended to call 911 undermines intent. | Evidence supports conscious objective to prevent a 911 call. |
| Admissibility of 911 recording as cumulative evidence | Recording offered for truth and to show Ashley’s state of mind; not merely duplicative. | Recording is cumulative of Ashley’s written statement and should be excluded. | Admission of both recording and written statement not an abuse of discretion; not unduly cumulative. |
| Waiver and proper basis for business-record hearsay ruling | Recordings initially admitted to show dispatch; later used for substantive purposes under Whelan. | Defense objected to substantive use; error in foundation for business-record basis. | Not a reversible error; ruling within trial court discretion given evolving foundation. |
| Constitutional/tribunal discretion on witness impeachment and extrinsic evidence | Extrinsic evidence for impeachment admissible under discretion of trial court. | Improper use of extrinsic evidence per Bermudez limits. | Court acted within discretion; Bermudez caveats satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Turner, 24 Conn. App. 264 (1991) (intent questions for the fact finder; credibility issues not reviewable)
- State v. Santos, 104 Conn. App. 599 (2007) (proof beyond reasonable doubt; view of evidence to sustain guilty finding)
- State v. Virgo, 115 Conn. App. 786 (2009) (intent to cause physical injury inferred from surrounding events)
- State v. Torwich, 38 Conn. App. 306 (1995) (circumstantial evidence admissible to prove intent or knowledge)
- State v. Turner, 24 Conn. App. 264 (1991) (see above)