State v. Santana, 97 A.3d 963

Defendant Santana was charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and carrying a pistol without a permit for the 2006 shooting death of Aaron McCrea.
Police executed a search warrant at Juan Nunez’s home and recovered a blue nylon bag with two handguns later forensically linked to the victim’s shooting; DNA testing implicated Santana as a possible minor contributor to one gun.
A search warrant affidavit contained witness statements implicating Nunez and Jose Montero; the defendant sought to use those statements at trial to show third‑party culpability.
On cross‑examination of Detective Michael Hunter, the state objected to questioning about the affidavit statements as hearsay; the court sustained the objection after the defendant offered several non‑hearsay‑exception rationales but did not invoke any specific hearsay exception.
Santana did not further pursue the matter at trial, presented no additional evidence on third‑party culpability, and was convicted on all counts; he appealed arguing the affidavit statements were admissible as adoptive admissions by a party opponent and that exclusion violated his constitutional right to present a defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Santana)	Held
Whether Santana preserved the claim that affidavit statements were admissible as adoptive admissions	The claim was unpreserved because Santana never identified or argued any hearsay exception at trial	Santana argued he functionally preserved the claim by disputing hearsay and explaining purposes for use of the statements	Court held claim was not preserved: defendant never referenced adoptive‑admission principle or any hearsay exception and failed Practice Book §5‑5 requirement
Whether exclusion of the affidavit statements violated Santana’s constitutional right to present a third‑party culpability defense (Golding review)	State argued claim is not constitutional and, in any event, Santana failed to show he was denied a meaningful opportunity to present the defense	Santana argued exclusion silenced evidence pointing to other suspects and thus violated his right to present a defense	Court declined Golding review: Santana failed the second Golding prong (not shown to be constitutional deprivation) and could have pursued other means to present the defense

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (sets four‑part test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
Fadner v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 281 Conn. 719 (2007) (allows review where substance of claim was raised despite lack of specific label)
State v. Jorge P., 308 Conn. 740 (2013) (party cannot litigate on one theory at trial and seek relief on a different theory on appeal)
State v. Tomas D., 296 Conn. 476 (2010) (defendant must take reasonable steps to exercise right to present defense)
State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363 (2004) (defendant’s right to present a defense is subject to rules of evidence)