45 Conn. App. 584 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1997
Opinion
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217. On appeal,
During direct examination of the defendant, defense counsel inquired whether there came a time when the victim and a friend of the defendant named “Hagler” stopped living at the defendant’s house. The defendant
The defendant claims that the trial court improperly precluded him from offering testimony that would have revealed bias on the part of Wright. “ [E] very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error. . . . The defendant’s rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to present a defense do not give him the right to have admitted any evidence he chooses. ... In the exercise of his rights, the defendant, as well as the state, must comply with the established rules of evidence and procedure. . . . Excluding certain evidence does not vitiate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense.
“We will not overturn a trial court’s evidentiary ruling unless there is an abuse of discretion and a showing by the defendant of substantial prejudice or injustice. . . . With respect to the trial court’s discretion, great weight is accorded the trial court’s decision and every reasonable presumption will be indulged in favor of its correctness. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 35 Conn. App. 51, 57-58, 644 A.2d 923 (1994).
In this case, the trial court, in ruling on the relevance of a single question and answer, did not preclude the
The judgment is affirmed.
This appeal was taken originally to the Supreme Court. Pursuant to Practice Book § 4023, the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this court.