5 Conn. App. 79 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1985
The defendant was found guilty, after a jury trial, of two counts of harassment in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183. She was sentenced to an effective term of ninety days in the custody of the commissioner of correction, execution suspended, and placed on probation for one year with the condition that she obtain daily psychiatric treatment. She claims, by this appeal, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the court erred: (1) in refusing to order a competency examination; (2) in improperly admitting illegally obtained evidence; (3) in making erroneous rulings on evidence; and (4) in giving erroneous instructions to the jury. We find no error.
As to the first claim of error, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel are more properly pursued in a petition for a new trial or in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus than on direct appeal. State v. Jacobowitz, 194 Conn. 408, 413, 480 A.2d 557 (1984); State v. Tirado, 194 Conn. 89, 93, 478 A.2d 606 (1984);
In State v. Chairamonte, 189 Conn. 61, 64, 454 A.2d 272 (1983), the Supreme Court, referring to its role in a direct appeal, stated: “Our role in a case like this, however, is not to guess at possibilities, but to review claims based on a complete factual record developed by a trial court. Without a hearing in which the reasons for counsel’s decision may be elicited, any decision of ours on this claim would be entirely speculative.” See also State v. Mason, supra, 579; Miller v. Angliker, supra, 416. Therefore, we decline to rule upon the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and we leave the defendant to relief by way of a habeas corpus petition.
The defendant claims that the court did not grant a motion for a competency examination on January 12, 1984, just prior to the start of trial. The motion was not specifically made under the provisions of General Statutes § 54-56d, but, rather, was an oral request for a continuance.
The court may, on its own motion, order a competency examination. General Statutes § 54-56d (c). It is, however, a matter of judicial discretion. State v. Bethea, 167 Conn. 80, 88-89, 355 A.2d 6 (1974). Here, the defendant had undergone an examination less than one month prior to the start of the trial and was found to be competent, able to understand the nature of the proceedings and able to assist counsel in her own defense.
The remaining issues are also without merit. It is not illegal to tape one’s own telephone conversations. State v. DeMartin, 171 Conn. 524, 544, 370 A.2d 1038 (1976). Therefore, the claim that it was improper to admit evidence that victims of the harassing telephone calls had recorded some of them is without merit.
Likewise, the court did not err in allowing a state’s witness to testify as to the actual words spoken by the defendant. The statute under which the defendant was charged provides, in part, that a person is guilty of the crime of harassment when “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he makes a telephone call ... in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.” General Statutes § 53a-183 (a) (3).
Evidence of the language used in an alleged violation of the harassment statute is relevant to show the intent of the accused in making the telephone call as well as the likelihood of its causing annoyance or alarm. Gormley v. Director, Conn. State Dept. of Probation, 632 F.2d 938, 943 (2d. Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1023, 101 S. Ct. 591, 66 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1980). In determining questions regarding relevancy, the trial court has broad discretion. Delott v. Roraback, 179 Conn. 406, 414, 426 A.2d 791 (1980).
The defendant also claims that the trial court erred in overruling her objection to testimony by a witness for the state as to the effect which the telephone calls had upon his family.
The defendant’s final claim of error is that the trial court failed to instruct the jury properly concerning her failure to testify.
It is not error for a court to refuse to define words which are “used and might be understood in their ordinary meanings.” State v. Maresca, 173 Conn. 450, 460, 377 A.2d 1330 (1977). The issue is whether the jury could have been misled by the court’s instructions. State v. Kurvin, 186 Conn. 555, 572, 442 A.2d 1327 (1982); State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 273, 368 A.2d 222 (1976); State v. Rose, 169 Conn. 683, 687-88, 363 A.2d 1077 (1975). The word “inference” is commonly and frequently used in the English language. It is not necessary to define words which are commonly used and which are defined in our standard dictionaries. “[T]he definition of words in our standard dictionaries is taken as a matter of common knowledge which the jury is supposed to possess.” State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695, 737, 478 A.2d 227 (1984).
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
The pertinent portion of the transcript provides: “Mr. Hunt: I’m making a motion for the Court to consider, subsequent to the finding of December 14th by the Diagnostic Clinic and as a result of perceived or felt stress by my client on proceeding today, she is not effectively able to assist counsel in the trial of the case.” (Emphasis added.)
General Statutes § 54-56d (b) provides: “presumption of competency. A defendant is presumed to be competent. The burden of proving that the defendant is not competent by clear and convincing evidence and the burden of going forward with the evidence are on the party raising the issue. The burden of going forward with the evidence shall be on the state if the court raises the issue. The court may call its own witnesses and conduct its own inquiry.”
The trial court’s judgment file provides: “Said accused was . . . presented before said court on December 6, 1983 upon motion by the Assistant State’s Attorney regarding alleged violation of conditions of release and following the hearing, the court ordered a competency evaluation pursuant to Section 54-56d of the Connecticut General Statutes. The evaluation was conducted by the Court’s Diagnostic Clinic on December 14,1983 and in the written report submitted to the court, the team reached the unanimous opinion that Lillian Lewtan was able to stand trial in that she had an understanding of the legal proceedings against her, and an ability to cooperate with counsel in her own defense.”
No specific ground for the objection was given and no subsequent objection or motion to strike was made following the court’s preliminary ruling. State v. Braman, 191 Conn. 670, 684-85, 469 A.2d 760 (1983). It is not error if a defendant does not pursue an objection or motion to strike following a preliminary ruling by the court which states that an objection is premature. Bridgeport Pipe Engineering Co. v. DeMatteo Construction Co., 159 Conn. 242, 251, 268 A.2d 391 (1970). Since a proper objection was not made during the trial, the court could consider this issue abandoned. Practice Book §§ 288 and 3063; State v. Addazio, 169 Conn. 416, 427-28, 363 A.2d 153 (1975).
While this ground was not properly preserved for appeal, it has been considered pursuant to State v. Tatem, 194 Conn. 594, 595, 483 A.2d 1087 (1984).