187 Conn. App. 813
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In March 2015 tow-operator Stephen Chase hooked the defendant Elvin Rivera’s car for towing from condominium property after observing it parked in an area marked as a fire lane; Rivera struck the tow truck with a pipe, Chase sprayed pepper spray, Rivera produced a knife, Chase retreated and called police.
- Rivera was charged with breach of the peace (2d), criminal mischief (3d), and threatening (2d); a jury convicted him and the trial court imposed a partially executed sentence.
- Before trial the state moved in limine to preclude evidence of Chase’s prior convictions and allegations of criminal conduct; Rivera sought to cross-examine Chase about specific acts underlying (a) 2014 larceny convictions and (b) a 2013 breach of the peace conviction (both supported by prior police reports).
- Rivera also moved for disclosure and in camera review of Chase’s medical, mental-health, and substance-abuse treatment records based on police reports indicating prior drug addiction and treatment in 2013.
- Rivera requested a jury instruction that defense of property (General Statutes § 53a-16/21) applied to criminal mischief (3d); at trial Rivera raised defense-of-property and self-defense justifications.
- The trial court (1) permitted proof of convictions but precluded inquiry into the specific acts underlying the prior convictions, (2) denied the motion for disclosure and voir dire on confidential treatment records, and (3) declined to instruct that defense of property applied to criminal mischief; Rivera appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of specific-act cross-examination about Chase’s 2014 larceny convictions and 2013 breach-of-peace conviction | Rivera: prior police statements admitting thefts and prior pepper-spray incident impeach Chase’s veracity and show motive (to steal) or pattern of false self-defense claims | State: specific-act evidence is remote, not probative of credibility or motive here, and would confuse the jury | Court: no abuse of discretion; specific-act inquiry was too remote, not probative of motive or pattern, and properly excluded |
| Disclosure and in camera review of Chase’s medical, mental-health, and substance-abuse records | Rivera: 2013 police reports show a drug addiction and treatment that likely bear on credibility; he should be allowed voir dire and in camera review | State: no knowledge of such records; police reports alone do not meet threshold; records would be remote and immaterial | Court: denial affirmed—Rivera failed to make the required preliminary showing; records (allegedly from ~2013) were too remote and not material |
| Jury instruction that defense of property applies to criminal mischief (3d) | Rivera: § 53a-16 makes justification defenses available in any prosecution, so defense of property should apply to criminal mischief | State: statutory language limits § 53a-21 to force against persons, not property offenses like criminal mischief | Court: statutory reading controls; defense of property applies to force upon persons, not to property offenses; instruction properly refused |
| Sufficiency—whether state disproved Rivera’s defenses (defense of property and self-defense) beyond a reasonable doubt | Rivera: evidence shows he reasonably believed Chase was stealing his car and that force was necessary; also that he reasonably believed he needed to defend himself after being sprayed | State: jury could credit Chase’s testimony that he was lawfully towing and that Rivera was the initial aggressor | Court: evidence sufficiently supported jury’s verdict; state disproved both justification defenses beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 298 Conn. 1 (2010) (scope of confrontation and review of evidentiary rulings regarding cross-examination)
- State v. Bruno, 236 Conn. 514 (1996) (standards for compelling in camera review of confidential treatment records)
- State v. Martin, 201 Conn. 74 (1986) (permitted limits on cross-examination regarding larcenous acts and witness veracity)
- State v. Fiocchi, 17 Conn. App. 326 (1989) (statutory justification defenses apply to force against persons; statutory construction limits application to offenses involving persons)