State v. SHAKIR
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 418
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Anwar Shakir was on three-year suspended incarceration with three years probation for sale of narcotics in 2007.
- During probation, he was arrested February 6, 2009 in Derby on two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one of risk of injury to a child.
- A probation violation hearing was held October 2 and 7, 2009 based on those underlying charges.
- A videotaped forensic interview of the minor complainant was conducted behind a two-way mirror by a licensed clinical social worker; the mother was not present.
- The video and a medical record showing a positive chlamydia test for the minor were admitted; the court found a violation by a preponderance and revoked probation, sentencing two years.
- Defendant appeals on: admissibility of the video, confrontation rights, sufficiency of evidence, and the trial court’s discretion in revocation; appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the video was admissible as evidence in a probation revocation hearing. | State argues video is reliable, probative hearsay given probation context. | Shakir contends video lacks indicia of reliability. | Video properly admitted; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether admitting the video violated due process rights to confrontation. | Golding review unnecessary; Morrissey framework allows flexible procedure. | Right to confront witnesses violated. | Golding-based review declined; record inadequate to assess good cause for nonproduction. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to find probation violation. | Video reliability plus medical diagnosis support violation. | Evidence insufficient to prove violation beyond doubt. | Sufficient evidence to support finding of probation violation. |
| Whether revocation of probation was an abuse of discretion. | Probation violation justified incarceration. | Discretionary decision to revoke probation improper. | Affirmed; court’s discretion exercised appropriately. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process requirements in probation revocation)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due process standards in revocation proceedings)
- State v. Crosby, 125 Conn.App. 775 (2011) (two-phase revocation analysis; factual then dispositional)
- State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174 (2004) (standard for review of revocation decision)
- State v. Lanagan, 119 Conn.App. 53 (2010) (informal probation hearings; hearsay admissibility)
- Quinones v. State, 92 Conn.App. 389 (2005) (hearsay admissibility in probation context)
- State v. Baxter, 19 Conn.App. 304 (1989) (due process and confrontation considerations in revocation)