139 Conn. App. 99
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Marcos R. Mercado, Jr. was convicted by jury of murder, felony murder, and first-degree robbery.
- Dec 24–26, 2007: victim Thomas Szadkowski invited Mercado to his apartment; they had a sexual act, Mercado retrieved a gun and shot the victim, then left with the Xbox.
- Mercado later gave the Xbox to a former girlfriend; he was arrested Dec. 30, 2007 and confessed in a videotaped interview.
- During trial, defense moved in limine to exclude Brooks’ testimony about Mercado’s past crimes; court limited direct examination but allowed cross-examination if defenses opened the door.
- Brooks testified rebuttably that Mercado had talked about committing robberies in the past; the defense did not object to Brooks’ rebuttal testimony, nor request a limiting instruction.
- Court ultimately held that the cross-examination about statements to Brooks and Brooks’ rebuttal were admissible under a balancing test and the door opened by defense cross-examination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior misconduct evidence | Brooks’ testimony probative of intent/motive; door opened by defense cross-exam. | 4-5(b) limits prior misconduct evidence; undue prejudice. | Court allowed cross-examination; admissible under balance and door doctrine. |
| Prosecutor's alleged violation of the in limine order | Cross-examination about prior statements was within good faith basis. | Deliberate violation; prejudicial and improper. | No reversible error; evidence admitted under court’s prior order and door-opening. |
| Preservation of evidentiary error | Rooted in Brooks testimony; preserved by trial record. | No timely objection to why testimony admitted. | Claims not reviewable because defense failed to object on the asserted ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Gooch, 186 Conn. 17 (1982) (prosecutorial labeling of evidentiary claims)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (preservation and constitutional claim framework)
- State v. Bell, 113 Conn. App. 25 (2009) (preservation and identification of evidentiary error)