193 Conn.App. 348
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In August 2016 Stamford police, alerted by local security and an FBI note about a video, encountered Yoon Chul Shin parked across from a synagogue during a Jewish athletic event. The FBI had circulated a video in which Shin discussed desecrating Jewish temples and expressed anti‑Semitic threats.
- Officers asked Shin for ID and registration; he refused, appeared agitated, and had pyramid‑shaped metal devices with wire on his dashboard which he said were used to desecrate temples. He refused repeated orders to exit and to turn off his car; officers extracted and arrested him after he resisted and shouted anti‑Semitic remarks in front of bystanders.
- A bomb dog alerted to the vehicle; a safety perimeter was established, children were evacuated, and no explosives were found. Shin was charged (substitute information) with three counts of interfering with an officer and one count of disorderly conduct; he represented himself at trial and was convicted.
- Shin raised multiple appellate claims: illegal seizure/arrest; insufficient evidence (officers’ testimony fabricated); improper admission of testimony about his Internet video; erroneous denial of juror challenge for cause; denial of subpoena to a rabbi (compulsory process); competency findings; and that a condition of his conditional discharge banning entry to Connecticut violated his right to travel.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions on all preserved issues, dismissed the travel condition claim as moot, and rejected or declined to review other claims for the reasons below.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Shin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of seizure/arrest | Even if arrest illegal, Shin did not show evidence used at trial resulted from it; conviction stands | Arrest/seizure illegal (no PC or warrant) and tainted evidence should overturn conviction | Rejected: illegal arrest alone doesn’t void conviction absent use of evidence obtained because of it; Shin didn’t raise suppression below and raised seizure evidence only in reply brief, so claim fails |
| Sufficiency of evidence (fabricated police testimony) | Officer testimony, vehicle items, dog alert, and Shin’s conduct support convictions | Officer testimony was fabricated; evidence insufficient | Rejected: appellate court defers to jury credibility determinations and finds a reasonable view supports the guilty verdicts |
| Admission of officers’ testimony about Shin’s Internet video | Testimony was offered to explain officers’ state of mind and actions after FBI tip; objections should have been made at trial | Testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial; other videos should have been admitted for context | Not reviewed (unpreserved): court declined to make advance ruling; Shin failed to object/move to strike during testimony, so claim not preserved |
| Denial of juror excusal for cause | Prospective juror stated she could be impartial; trial court has broad discretion | Juror tied to Montessori school and had made promotional films; bias likely | Rejected: juror repeatedly affirmed impartiality; no record showing fixed opinion or improper demeanor; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Denial of subpoena to out‑of‑state rabbi (compulsory process) | Rabbinical testimony about a cordial prior interaction was irrelevant to charges | Rabbi would testify Shin did no harm on his travels, supporting defense | Rejected: under Golding, claim reviewed and failed — proffered testimony was irrelevant to the charged offenses and therefore exclusion did not violate compulsory process |
| Competency findings (initially incompetent then found competent) | Court followed procedures; record adequate | Court erred in initial competency finding | Not reviewed: Shin’s brief lacks analysis or legal argument to challenge the initial incompetency finding |
| Condition banning entry to Connecticut (right to travel) | Condition expired before appeal; claim moot | Condition has lasting collateral consequences (employment) so not moot | Dismissed as moot: condition expired; collateral‑consequences claim speculative and not shown to create reasonable possibility of future prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bagnaschi, 180 Conn. App. 835 (Conn. App. 2018) (an illegal arrest does not bar subsequent prosecution absent evidence obtained as a result of the arrest)
- State v. Silano, 96 Conn. App. 341 (Conn. App. 2006) (even when arrest without probable cause, conviction not void if no evidence resulted from arrest)
- State v. Dojnia, 190 Conn. App. 353 (Conn. App. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and deference to jury credibility determinations)
- State v. Jorge P., 308 Conn. 740 (Conn. 2013) (preservation rules for evidentiary objections require timely and specific trial objections)
- State v. Patel, 186 Conn. App. 814 (Conn. App. 2019) (preliminary evidentiary rulings require a definitive trial‑level ruling to preserve appellate review)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)