208 Conn.App. 45
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- On May 20, 2017, Luna turned left into a hall parking lot on Old Colony Road without signaling while using her cell phone (GPS/talking) and saw an oncoming motorcycle but misjudged its speed.
- The motorcycle skidded and the rider (Tardiff) laid the bike down; Luna’s car nevertheless drove over the motorcycle and both occupants. Tardiff later died; the passenger suffered serious, long-term injuries.
- At the scene Luna gave a sworn statement denying phone use; later, with counsel, she mailed a second sworn statement saying no cars were in the opposite lane and she made/received no calls within 20 minutes before arriving.
- Luna was convicted by a jury of misconduct with a motor vehicle (death caused by criminal negligence) and third‑degree assault (criminal negligence causing injury); she also pleaded/was found guilty of related motor vehicle infractions.
- On appeal Luna argued (1) insufficient evidence of criminal negligence, (2) improper exclusion of portions of Tardiff’s medical/toxicology records, (3) improper admission of Tardiff’s death certificate in violation of the Confrontation Clause, and (4) a Sixth Amendment violation from an alleged conflict of interest by defense counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (criminal negligence element for misconduct with a vehicle and assault) | State: evidence showed a gross deviation from reasonable care (phone use, un-signaled left turn into motorcycle’s path, drove over victims). | Luna: ordinary lapse or momentary distraction, not criminal negligence. | Court: Evidence sufficient; jury reasonably found criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Exclusion of hospital toxicology/medical records (admissibility/business‑record exception; relevance) | State: records are hearsay, lacked foundation, relevance, and required expert explanation (timing, levels, medical intervention). | Luna: records admissible (subpoenaed custodian) and relevant to show victim impairment; exclusion violated right to present a defense. | Court: Luna failed to preserve business‑record claim and, even on merits, records lacked foundation and relevance without expert testimony; exclusion not an abuse and did not violate right to present a defense. |
| Admission of death certificate (Confrontation Clause) | State: defense waived confrontation claim at trial by counsel’s statements and objections limited to prejudice. | Luna: death certificate is testimonial hearsay; admission violated Sixth Amendment. | Court: Defense counsel waived confrontation objection (no objection to marking; only objected on prejudice when offered); Golding review fails under the third prong; claim rejected. |
| Conflict‑free counsel (counsel prepared defendant’s second statement and provided it to prosecution) | State: no duty to inquire absent a timely objection or facts reasonably alerting court to a conflict; no actual conflict shown. | Luna: counsel’s role in drafting/providing the statement created an actual conflict (counsel became potential witness, couldn’t object). | Court: Record did not show a conflict court should have known about; no duty to inquire sua sponte; no constitutional violation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Daniels, 191 Conn. App. 33 (2019) (criminal negligence requires failure to perceive a substantial, unjustifiable risk constituting a gross deviation)
- State v. Carter, 64 Conn. App. 631 (2001) (distracted driving can establish criminal negligence)
- Deegan v. Simmons, 100 Conn. App. 524 (2007) (toxicology/ lab reports inadmissible without explanatory expert testimony)
- State v. Hargett, 196 Conn. App. 228 (2020) (toxicology evidence excluded where defendant failed to show relevance/explain impact)
- State v. Lawson, 99 Conn. App. 233 (2007) (trace drug findings require expert proof of impairment to be relevant)
- State v. Castro, 200 Conn. App. 450 (2020) (defendant may waive Confrontation Clause claims through counsel’s trial conduct)
- State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 665 (1998) (trial court duty to inquire about conflicts when alerted to a possible conflict)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (2015) (modification/application of Golding)