State v. Perez
2013 WL 6173985
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- In Hartford, July 1, 2010, officers pursued three men including Perez after observing a handgun in Perez's waistband.
- The men fled into an apartment, were detained, and Perez no longer possessed a weapon at that time.
- Police obtained permission to search the premises and found a .38 revolver later identified as Perez's gun.
- The gun was dry fired by an officer to test operability, which the officer observed as functional.
- A firearms examiner testified sixteen months later that the gun was not operable then but could be restored with lubricant; he did not testify about credentials as an expert.
- During trial, the court sua sponte invited the state to reopen to qualify the examiner as an expert; the state complied and the examiner testified as an expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operability evidence sufficiency | Perez asserts operability at possession time was not proven. | Perez contends insufficient evidence to prove operability. | Operability proven; sufficient evidence supports verdict. |
| Court's invitation to reopen for expert qualification | Reopening was improper and biased against defendant. | Reopening was necessary to properly qualify the expert for instructions. | Trial court's reopening proper; not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640 (2011) (two-step sufficiency and standard of review)
- State v. Morelli, 293 Conn. 147 (2009) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency and deferential review)
- State v. Sherman, 127 Conn. App. 377 (2011) (definition of firearm under statute)
- State v. Carpenter, 19 Conn. App. 48 (1989) (circumstantial evidence admissibility for operability)
- State v. Peloso, 109 Conn. App. 477 (2008) (trial judge’s reopening and impartiality guidance)
- State v. Allen, 205 Conn. 370 (1987) (abuse of discretion for state to reopen when prima facie case lacking)
- State v. Heriberto M., 116 Conn. App. 635 (2009) (expert testimony and jury instruction relevance)
- State v. Lopes, 78 Conn. App. 264 (2003) (judge may question witnesses to clarify testimony)