State v. Morquecho
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 497
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Julio Morquecho was convicted by a jury of murder under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a(a).
- Victim: Maria Chuica; Morquecho and Chuica shared a Danbury apartment with Chuica’s two children and her brothers, who moved in Feb. 2005.
- Morquecho’s threats and violent conduct began after Chuica became involved with a coworker, Abel Quinde, prompting protective orders and police involvement.
- Chuica moved out in May 2005 with help from law enforcement; Morquecho repeatedly threatened and harassed her, including during 2005–2006, and accessed her workplace and residence.
- In 2006Morquecho violated a restraining order and probation; he later confronted Chuica at work and around her living areas, culminating in Chuica’s death in April 2006.
- The state introduced expert testimony on domestic violence and sought to admit prior testimony of Quinde and other witnesses; Morquecho challenged both evidentiary rulings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of domestic violence expert testimony | Stark’s expertise aided understanding of DV dynamics | Testimony was not necessary or probative | Admissible; helpful to the jury |
| Relevance of battered-woman’s syndrome concept | Stark’s broader DV behavior is relevant | Evidence did not fit DV patterns and was irrelevant | Not applicable; testimony did not rely on battered-woman’s syndrome |
| Admission of Quinde’s probable-cause testimony as unavailable witness | Unavailability shown; due diligence exercised | State failed to show reasonable efforts to secure attendance | Properly admitted; state showed diligent efforts to secure Quinde |
| Confrontation clause implications of admitted testimony | Rights preserved; testimony not testimonial | Confrontation rights violated | No reversible error; unpreserved or not infringed under applicable standard |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frye, 182 Conn. 476 (Conn. 1980) (unavailability requires reasonable efforts to procure attendance)
- State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 85 (Conn. App. 2008) (trial court’s due-diligence review of unavailability wide discretion)
- State v. Alvarez, 216 Conn. 301 (Conn. 1990) (proper framing of evidentiary objections; limits on appeal)
- State v. Slater, 285 Conn. 162 (Conn. 2008) (Confrontation clause and testimonial hearsay)
- State v. Coccomo, 302 Conn. 664 (Conn. 2011) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion)