State v. Ralph B., 162 Conn.App. 583

Background

Defendant (Ralph B.) was charged with multiple offenses arising from an alleged January 4, 2012 domestic incident in which the victim (his wife) claimed he attempted to strangle her in front of their child; jury convicted of attempt to commit assault 1st, unlawful restraint 1st, strangulation 2nd, and risk of injury to a child; acquitted of strangulation 1st and interfering with an emergency call.
Pretrial, three hearings on discovery and substantive pretrial motions occurred (Jan. 4, Jan. 15, Feb. 1, 2013); the trial court (and an earlier judge) denied the defendant’s repeated requests to be physically present at some of those hearings.
Key contested pretrial matters included: (1) defendant’s motion for in camera review of the complaining witness’s mental health records; (2) admissibility of multiple items of uncharged misconduct evidence by the state; and (3) a motion to suppress statements to a DCF worker (Nardelli).
At the Jan. 15 hearing the court denied the in camera review request; at the Feb. 1 hearing the court admitted six prior uncharged incidents (and set parameters for others), declined some exclusions, and discussed suppression issues; the court later allowed testimony that defendant had opened the door to Tremblay’s evidence during trial.
On appeal the defendant argued: (1) his due process/right-to-be-present at critical stages was violated by exclusion from the three pretrial hearings; (2) improper admission of extrinsic evidence on collateral matters; (3) statutory incompatibility of convictions with the strangulation statute; and (4) denial of allocution/mitigation opportunity at sentencing.
The Appellate Court held the defendant’s absence from the Jan. 15 and Feb. 1 hearings was a denial of his right to be present at critical stages that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion from pretrial hearings violated defendant’s right to be present at critical stages	Defendant failed to show absence adversely affected his ability to defend; counsel could convey rulings; no proffer of what defendant would have testified	Hearings were critical (involved credibility, in camera review of witness mental health records, admissibility of uncharged misconduct, suppression issues); his presence would bear a reasonably substantial relation to his defense	Court: Exclusion from Jan. 15 and Feb. 1 hearings violated due process; error not harmless; reversed and remanded for new trial
Whether trial court improperly admitted extrinsic / uncharged misconduct evidence	Evidence showed common plan, intent, absence of mistake; probative value outweighed prejudice	Evidence was dissimilar/remote and highly prejudicial; defendant’s absence prevented him from contesting characterization	Not finally resolved on merits because reversal based on presence; record shows court admitted six incidents and set limits; appellate decision focused on presence error
Whether convictions for assault and unlawful restraint can stand with conviction for strangulation under §53a-64bb(b)	State did not have to elect or vacate counts; statutory interpretation supports convictions	Statute precludes double convictions when strangulation convictions overlap with assault/unlawful restraint	Appellate Court did not reach merits due to reversal; claim preserved for retrial/renewal
Whether defendant was denied allocution / opportunity to present mitigating information at sentencing	State: sentencing procedures followed; no prejudice shown	Defendant: denied right to allocution and to present mitigation information	Not addressed on merits because conviction reversed; claim remains for resentencing if retrial/conviction occurs

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dixon, 318 Conn. 495 (2015) (standard for presence at critical stages and plenary review of exclusion claims)
State v. Lopez, 271 Conn. 724 (2004) (structural error analysis where denial of presence as to conflict of counsel made effects unquantifiable)
Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (presence guaranteed at stages whose absence thwarts fairness; relation to opportunity to defend)
State v. Olds, 171 Conn. 395 (1976) (no absolute right to be present for legal arguments pretrial; analysis whether presence bears reasonably substantial relation to defense)
State v. Blake, 106 Conn. App. 345 (2008) (standards for in camera review of psychiatric/mental-health records for impeachment material)
People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656 (1992) (importance of defendant participation in hearings on admissibility of prior bad acts and how presence aids formulation of defense arguments)
State v. Brown, 279 Conn. 493 (2006) (discussion of structural error versus harmless error and when reversal is required)
State v. Zapata, 119 Conn. App. 660 (2010) (harmless error framework for absence from proceedings)