161 Conn.App. 10
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Steven K. Stanley and the victim had a prior dating relationship; after an arrest on Feb. 10, 2012, a protective order (Feb. 14, 2012) barred him from contacting the victim.
- Police obtained phone records showing ~1,750 calls from the defendant's number to the victim between Feb. 14 and Mar. 24, 2012; the state charged an amended information with 100 counts of violation of a protective order, 1 count of first‑degree stalking, and 1 count of second‑degree threatening.
- At trial the defendant represented himself; officers overheard some calls when the victim put her phone on speaker; the victim positively identified the defendant’s voice on a small number of calls.
- The state did not have the victim’s phone records until the first day of trial; the records were admitted and copies were provided to the defendant overnight; the defendant did not request a continuance and used the records at trial to impeach the victim.
- The defendant’s own phone records were obtained by police but not offered into evidence; the defendant raised multiple discovery and suppression claims, including under the notice statute for obtaining telecom records (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑47aa) and the wiretap statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑41m).
- The trial court convicted the defendant on all counts and sentenced him to 18 years (12 years special parole). On appeal the defendant argued (1) insufficient evidence as to who made the calls, (2) discovery violations/deprivation of confrontation and right to present a defense, (3) erroneous admission/failure to suppress or strike phone records, and (4) improper participation by a judge who signed his arrest warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 100 protective‑order counts | Cumulative circumstantial evidence (phone records showing calls from defendant’s number, victim identification of voice on some calls, consciousness‑of‑guilt letters asking family to claim they made calls, other harassing conduct) suffices to let jury infer defendant made the calls | Although calls came from his phone, state failed to prove defendant personally made most calls; caller ID was blocked and victim only recognized voice on limited occasions | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence sufficient for jury to infer defendant made the calls and convict on counts |
| Late disclosure of victim’s phone records — Confrontation Clause (Crawford) | Victim’s phone records are business records, not testimonial; admission does not implicate Crawford | Records were compiled for use in prosecution and defendant had no opportunity to cross‑examine maker of records | Affirmed: records were not testimonial; Crawford did not apply; Golding review rejected because claim not of constitutional magnitude under Crawford |
| Late disclosure — right to present a defense / due process | State provided victim’s records at trial but copies were given overnight; defendant could review and used them at trial; no prejudice shown; continuance available but not requested | Late receipt prejudiced ability to compare records, develop alibi, and impeach; deprived right to present complete defense | Affirmed: no violation — defendant had access overnight, used records at trial, did not request continuance or show concrete prejudice |
| Suppression/striking of phone records (54‑47aa notice / wiretap statute) | State did not present defendant’s phone records; victim’s records admissible; §54‑47aa notice requirement applies to subscriber whose records are obtained, not to third parties; defendant lacked standing to assert victim’s notice rights | Police failed to give statutorily required notice re: defendant’s records and failed to comply with pretrial rulings; court should have suppressed/stricken records and/or struck testimony referencing records | Affirmed: no suppression error — defendant’s records were not offered, claim unpreserved or not applicable; defendant lacked standing re: victim’s notice; no prejudice shown |
| Disqualification of judge who signed arrest warrant | State: Practice Book §41‑17 inapplicable because judge signed arrest warrant (not a search warrant) and did not rule on the warrant; no constitutional due‑process claim because no allegation of actual bias | Judge Fuger signed arrest warrant and then participated in related proceedings; this violated practice rules and created appearance (or possibility) of partiality | Affirmed: disqualification claim failed — §41‑17 did not apply, defendant alleged no actual bias, and constitutional due‑process claim not of constitutional magnitude for Golding review |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible absent prior opportunity for cross‑examination and witness unavailability)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572 (2007) (due process requires actual bias to disqualify judge; Code of Judicial Conduct sets higher appearance standards than federal due process)
- State v. Binnette, 86 Conn. App. 491 (2004) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in circumstantial‑evidence cases)
- State v. Tomasko, 238 Conn. 253 (1996) (one‑party consent to interception negates application of wiretap statute)