State v. Perez, 147 Conn. App. 53

Background

Eddie A. Perez, then mayor of Hartford, was tried on two informations joined for a single jury trial: (A) bribery/fabricating-evidence counts based on renovations performed at his home by contractor Carlos Costa; and (B) extortion/conspiracy/attempt counts based on a developer (Citino) who allegedly was pressured to pay $100,000 to parking‑lot operator Abraham Giles to clear city‑owned property.
The state presented the bribery evidence first (multiple witnesses, documents about the Park Street project, a disputed invoice for Perez’s home work), then the extortion evidence (documents and testimony about the Davis building transaction and Citino–Giles negotiations).
The jury convicted Perez of bribe receiving, accessory to fabricating physical evidence, conspiracy to fabricate evidence, conspiracy to commit larceny by extortion, and attempt to commit larceny by extortion; acquitted on one fabricating‑evidence count.
Perez appealed, arguing (inter alia) insufficiency of the evidence, improper consolidation/denial of severance (including that joinder forced a choice about testifying), erroneous jury instructions, and admission of uncharged‑misconduct evidence.
The appellate court held the evidence sufficient to support the convictions but concluded the trial court abused its discretion by joining the two informations and by denying severance once Perez made a clear showing he wished to testify in the bribery case but invoke the Fifth Amendment as to the extortion case; the convictions were reversed and both matters remanded for separate retrials. The court did not resolve the instructional/evidence claims because of the remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (bribery/fabrication)	State: evidence (invoice, unpaid renovations, Perez’s intervention for Costa on Park Street, expedited payments, defendant’s interview lies) supported convictions	Perez: no proof he intended to fabricate invoice or that an official proceeding was imminent; no agreement with Costa	Held: Evidence sufficient to support bribery and fabricating‑evidence convictions (viewing evidence favorably to verdict).
Sufficiency of evidence (extortion/conspiracy/attempt)	State: defendant’s meetings/emails and conduct suggested he conditioned city assistance on ‘‘taking care’’ of Giles and assisted to induce payment	Perez: no evidence he compelled $100,000 payment or instilled fear; no agreement with Giles	Held: Evidence sufficient to support inchoate extortion convictions (conspiracy/attempt).
Joinder / consolidation of informations	State: joinder conserved resources, cases distinct and jury instructions could keep evidence separate	Perez: joinder caused substantial prejudice, evidence not cross‑admissible, complexity and length increased risk jury cumulated evidence	Held: Trial court abused discretion in joining the two distinct, complex, overlapping corruption matters; prejudice not cured by instructions; reversal and remand for separate trials.
Severance linked to defendant’s right to testify	State: curative instructions and timing didn’t establish prejudice; prosecution relied on record	Perez: after bribery proof, he said he would testify on bribery but invoke Fifth on extortion—severance required to preserve right to testify without subjecting him to cross on unrelated allegations	Held: Denial of severance after Perez made a specific showing infringed his constitutional right to decide whether to testify; this constitutional error required reversal (state did not show harmlessness).

Key Cases Cited

State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714 (Conn. 1987) (sets Boscarino factors for severance: distinctness of factual scenarios, violent/brutal nature, trial duration/complexity; risk of cumulative weighing)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (Conn. 2012) (when cases are charged in separate informations and evidence is not cross‑admissible, state bears burden to show joinder will not cause unfair prejudice)
State v. Foreshaw, 214 Conn. 540 (Conn. 1990) (official‑proceeding element of § 53a‑155 can be satisfied when an official proceeding is readily apt to arise from defendant’s conduct)
State v. Chance, 236 Conn. 31 (Conn. 1996) (defendant must make clear intent to testify as to one count but not another to justify severance on that ground)
State v. Schroff, 198 Conn. 405 (Conn. 1986) (defendant must make a convincing showing—describe intended testimony and reasons not to testify on other counts—before severance for testimony choice is required)
State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 (Conn. 2012) (discusses Boscarino factors and appellate standard for joinder/severance review)
State v. Davis, 286 Conn. 17 (Conn. 2008) (joinder analysis and discussion of reviewing court’s role; concurrence emphasizes record before trial court when evaluating abuse of discretion)
State v. Bergin, 214 Conn. 657 (Conn. 1990) (bribery undermines public trust and may occur gradually; context for bribery statutes)