State v. UrbanowskiState v. Urbanowski
Convicted of assault in the second degree, breach of the peace in the second degree, strangulation in the second degree, and threatening in the second degree in connection with an incident in which he choked the victim, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court improperly admitted evidence that he had allegedly choked another woman ten years earlier as prior uncharged misconduct that was probative of his intent to choke the victim in this case. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding, inter alia, that, although the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting the prior uncharged misconduct evidence, that error was harmless. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court. Held that this court agreed with the Appellate Court‘s conclusion that any such evidentiary error was harmless for the reasons given by that court and, because the certified question was fully addressed by the well reasoned opinion of the Appellate Court, this court adopted that court‘s opinion as a proper statement of the issue of harmlessness and the applicable law concerning that issue.
Procedural History
Two part substitute information charging the defendant, in the first part, with the crimes of assault in the second degree, breach of the peace in the second degree, strangulation in the second degree, threatening in the second degree, and use of drug paraphernalia, and, in the second part, with being a persistent serious felony offender, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland, geographical area number nineteen, where the first part of the information was tried to the jury before Bright, J.; thereafter, the court granted the defendant‘s motion for a judgment of acquittal as to the charge of use of drug paraphernalia; verdict of guilty of assault in the second degree, breach of the peace in the second degree, strangulation in the second degree, and threatening in the second degree; subsequently, the defendant was presented to the court on a plea of nolo contendere as to the second part of the information; judgment of guilty in accordance with the verdict and plea, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Keller, Prescott and Mullins, Js., which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed.
PER CURIAM. A jury found the defendant, Michael A. Urbanowski, guilty of assault in the second degree in violation of
The defendant appealed from the trial court‘s judgment to the Appellate Court, claiming, among other things, that the trial court had improperly admitted evidence of his prior uncharged alleged misconduct. Specifically, the trial court permitted testimony of a woman whom the defendant had allegedly choked approximately ten years earlier as probative of the defendant‘s intent in the 2012 incident. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that, although the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting the uncharged misconduct testimony, the defendant had not demonstrated that the error was harmful. State v. Urbanowski, 163 Conn. App. 377, 410, 136 A.3d 236 (2016).
We granted the defendant‘s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following question: “Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court erred in the admission of uncharged misconduct but that said error was harmless?” State v. Urbanowski, 321 Conn. 905, 138 A.3d 280 (2016).
After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties before this court, we have determined that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. We do not consider whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting the uncharged misconduct evidence because we agree that any such error would be harmless for the reasons given by the Appellate Court. Because the Appellate Court‘s well reasoned opinion fully addresses the certified question, it would serve no purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. We therefore adopt the Appellate Court‘s opinion as the proper statement of the issue of harmlessness and the applicable law concerning that issue.1 See, e.g., Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 317 Conn. 46, 51, 115 A.3d 458 (2015).
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.