State v. Nazarian
125 Conn. App. 489
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- At about 3:45 a.m. on August 21, 2006, Nazarian, his girlfriend Green, and Martinez left a Port Chester nightclub following a confrontation with victims including Mike Castillo.
- Nazarian and Martinez's groups drove separate vehicles, then pursued onto Interstate 95 toward Stamford, with the victims in a Toyota Corolla; the vehicles allegedly raced during the drive.
- Nazarian stopped at a red light on East Main Street; the victim approached and attacked Nazarian; as the signal turned green, Nazarian sped away with the victim's arm in the car, dragging him and causing the victim to sustain fatal injuries.
- Nazarian did not stop to aid the victim, did not render assistance, and continued to his home about 1.5 miles away; Martinez later called police but did not report the accident or that a person had been dragged.
- Nazarian and Green initially lied to police, asserting Martinez was the driver; Martinez also lied about events and operator status, and Nazarian provided a sworn statement denying he was the operator.
- Nazarian ultimately admitted in later statements that he operated the Acura, did not stop, and did not report the accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evasion of responsibility was proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Nazarian contends the evidence was insufficient. | State relies on predicate elements plus failure to stop and report. | Evidence sufficient; jury could find evasion beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the jury instruction on § 14-224(a) satisfied due process | Nazarian argues the instruction was improper. | State asserts the instruction was correct and not misleading. | Instructions, viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rosario, 81 Conn. App. 621 (2004) (articulated essential elements of § 14-224(a))
- State v. Lawson, 99 Conn. App. 233 (2007) (discussed evasion framework when defendant failed to stop)
- State v. Johnson, 227 Conn. 534 (1993) (purpose of evading responsibility to ensure driver identification)
- State v. Calabrese, 279 Conn. 393 (2006) (standard for sufficiency review and reasonable doubt framework)
- State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141 (2007) (jury instructions must be considered in totality)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (Golding test for preserved/unpreserved constitutional errors)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases)