139 Conn. App. 670
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Todd R. Romanko was convicted after a jury trial of operating a motor vehicle under the influence under Conn. gen. sta. § 14-227a(a)(1).
- Incident occurred August 14, 2009: after drinking, Romanko wandered onto a Burlington deck, entered a residence, and then drove away; resident described his vehicle to police.
- Officer Murak observed Romanko swerving, smelled of alcohol, and heard slurred speech; Romanko failed three field sobriety tests and was arrested.
- Romanko admitted consuming one beer and taking prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
- He was sentenced to three years’ incarceration with execution suspended after one year and three years of probation; he appeals challenging jury instructions and the denial of demonstrative evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions expanded the charge and violated unanimity | Romanko contends instructions allowed conviction under 14-227a(a)(1) for ‘alcohol or drugs or both’ beyond the information’s charge of ‘alcohol and drugs.’ | Romanko argues the long-form information limited the charge to ‘alcohol and drugs,’ so the instructions impermissibly broadened the scope. | Waived; the court properly reviewed and defense counsel had opportunity to object and accept the proposed instructions. |
| Whether the court violated the right to present a defense by rejecting demonstrative evidence | Romanko asserts he should be allowed to demonstrate heel-to-toe and one-leg stand in front of the jury. | State contends the court acted within discretion; demonstration would be unreliable and unnecessary. | No reversible error; trial court could exclude demonstrative evidence and allowed testimony to describe events. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (waiver of challenge to jury instructions when counsel reviewed and accepted proposed instructions)
- State v. Thomas W., 301 Conn. 724 (2011) (plenaries review of instructional waiver; close examination of record)
- State v. Shabazz, 246 Conn. 746 (1998) (right to present defense limited; evidentiary rulings are nonconstitutional, within trial court discretion)
- Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 280 Conn. 1 (2006) (broad discretion to admit or exclude demonstrative evidence)
- State v. Watson, 251 Conn. 220 (1999) (demonstrative evidence restrictions; reliability concerns for exemplar voice)