State v. Rivera
152 Conn.App. 248
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Rivera was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of attempt to commit murder, two counts of first-degree assault, one count of conspiracy to commit assault, and carrying a pistol without a permit.
- Before trial, the court granted Rivera’s discovery request for exculpatory information; the state later added Detective Kimberly Biehn to the witness list.
- During trial, Biehn testified about processing the victim’s vehicle and recovering items; after her testimony, Rivera learned of alleged arrest/suspension involving Biehn.
- Rivera moved for a mistrial and the court suspended trial for four days to allow investigation and offered to permit Biehn to testify as a hostile witness for broad cross-examination.
- Rivera ultimately declined to cross-examine Biehn as a hostile witness and did not obtain Biehn’s personnel file during the trial.
- Rivera was not granted a mistrial; the court proceeded and he was convicted on most counts, with a total sentence of 32 years plus 12 years of special parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation suppression analysis | Rivera contends Brady violation occurred, suppressing impeachment evidence. | State asserts no suppression; procedures allowed investigation and disclosure during trial. | No Brady violation; impeachment evidence not suppressed; no prejudice. |
| Confrontation right and mistrial | Rivera argues delayed discovery violated confrontation rights requiring mistrial. | State argues court’s curative options preserved confrontation rights without mistrial. | No denial of confrontation; court could structure remedy without mistrial; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2012) (evidence known to the defendant is not suppressed under Brady; prejudice required for delay)
- Camacho v. Commissioner of Correction, 148 Conn. App. 488 (Conn. App. 2014) (great deference given to trial court’s curative actions; mistrial not favored)
- State v. Pierre, 277 Conn. 42 (Conn. 2006) (confrontation clause permits curative cross-examination methods short of mistrial)
- Davis v. Commissioner of Correction, 140 Conn. App. 597 (Conn. App. 2013) (Brady prejudice is a question of law; timely disclosure affects outcome)