751 A.2d 843 (Conn.App. 2000), 18153, State v. Perry

Docket Nº18153.
Citation751 A.2d 843, 58 Conn.App. 65
Opinion JudgeEDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, C.J. O'CONNELL, C.J.
Party NameSTATE of Connecticut v. Damon PERRY.
AttorneyRichard Hustad Miller, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). John A. East III, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Mary M. Galvin, state's attorney, and Francis J. McQuade, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Judge PanelBefore EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, C.J., and FRANCIS X. HENNESSY and DUPONT, JJ. In this opinion the other Judges concurred.
Case DateMay 30, 2000
CourtAppellate Court of Connecticut

Page 843

751 A.2d 843 (Conn.App. 2000)

58 Conn.App. 65

STATE of Connecticut

v.

Damon PERRY.

No. 18153.

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

May 30, 2000

Argued Nov. 2, 1999.

Page 844

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 845

[58 Conn.App. 66] Richard Hustad Miller, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

John A. East III, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Mary M. Galvin, state's attorney, and Francis J. McQuade, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Before EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, C.J., and FRANCIS X. HENNESSY and DUPONT, JJ. 1

EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, C.J.

The defendant, Damon Perry, appeals from the judgments of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of sale of cocaine in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b). 2 The defendant claims that (1) his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were violated when the state's attorney on cross-examination asked two defense witnesses about the defendant's employment, business practices and income tax returns in an effort to have the jury infer that drug sales were the defendant's only means of supporting himself, (2) the state's attorney engaged in prosecutorial misconduct that deprived the defendant of his constitutional rights to a fair trial and an impartial jury and (3) the trial court [58 Conn.App. 67] improperly accepted a verdict from the jury based on insufficient evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The defendant was charged in five separate informations with selling cocaine to an undercover police officer five times between October 30, 1995, and December 5, 1995, in violation of § 21a-278 (b). During trial, the defendant presented several alibi witnesses.

I

The defendant first claims that the state's attorney, on cross-examination of two defense witnesses, improperly asked questions concerning the defendant's employment, business practices and income tax returns in an effort to have the jury infer that drug sales were his only means of supporting himself. The defendant contends that this line of inquiry constituted improper and discriminatory use of his economic status to prejudice the jury against him, thereby denying him his constitutional right to equal protection of the law under article first, §§ 1 and 20, and amendments five and twenty-one of the constitution of Connecticut and under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut. We decline to review this claim.

Because this claim was not preserved at trial, the defendant seeks review in this court under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and the plain error doctrine. Practice Book § 60-5; see State v. Quinones, 56 Conn.App. 529, 531, 745 A.2d 191 (2000). It is well established that "[u]nder Golding, a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional[58 Conn.App. 68] magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any one of these

Page 846

conditions, the defendant's claim will fail." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Connelly, 46 Conn.App. 486, 509, 700 A.2d 694 (1997), cert. denied, 244 Conn. 907, 908, 713 A.2d 829, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 907, 119 S.Ct. 245, 142 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998).

This is not a claim of first impression. We previously have held that questions designed to show that a defendant is poor and, thus, might have a motive to commit a crime are not of constitutional magnitude and, accordingly, do not satisfy the second prong of Golding. State v. Hansen,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • 760 A.2d 117 (Conn.App. 2000), 19529, Daigle v. Metropolitan Property and Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • October 17, 2000
    ...is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." State v. Perry, 58 Conn.App. 65, 68, 751 A.2d 843 (2000). General Statutes § 52-216b provides in relevant part: "(a) In any civil action to recover damages resulting fro......
  • 783 A.2d 1057 (Conn.App. 2001), 20635, State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • September 4, 2001
    ...and to support his theory of defense and, accordingly, were not comments on the defendant's failure to testify." State v. Perry, 58 Conn.App. 65, 71, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). As this court has stated, "even if we were to consider, as the defe......
  • 793 A.2d 1139 (Conn.App. 2002), 21233, State v. Crnkovic
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • March 26, 2002
    ...egregious that it infringed on the defendant's right to a fair trial." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Perry, 58 Conn.App. 65, 69, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000); see also 1 B. Holden & J. Daly, Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed.1988) § 12, p.......
  • 800 A.2d 1200 (Conn.App. 2002), 22200, State v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • June 25, 2002
    ...in context, the challenged remarks fell within the bounds of proper commentary on the defendant's theory of defense. See State v. Perry, 58 Conn.App. 65, 71-72, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). Accordingly, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the comm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • 760 A.2d 117 (Conn.App. 2000), 19529, Daigle v. Metropolitan Property and Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • October 17, 2000
    ...is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." State v. Perry, 58 Conn.App. 65, 68, 751 A.2d 843 (2000). General Statutes § 52-216b provides in relevant part: "(a) In any civil action to recover damages resulting fro......
  • 783 A.2d 1057 (Conn.App. 2001), 20635, State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • September 4, 2001
    ...and to support his theory of defense and, accordingly, were not comments on the defendant's failure to testify." State v. Perry, 58 Conn.App. 65, 71, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). As this court has stated, "even if we were to consider, as the defe......
  • 793 A.2d 1139 (Conn.App. 2002), 21233, State v. Crnkovic
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • March 26, 2002
    ...egregious that it infringed on the defendant's right to a fair trial." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Perry, 58 Conn.App. 65, 69, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000); see also 1 B. Holden & J. Daly, Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed.1988) § 12, p.......
  • 800 A.2d 1200 (Conn.App. 2002), 22200, State v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • June 25, 2002
    ...in context, the challenged remarks fell within the bounds of proper commentary on the defendant's theory of defense. See State v. Perry, 58 Conn.App. 65, 71-72, 751 A.2d 843, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914, 759 A.2d 508 (2000). Accordingly, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the comm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results