State Of Conn. v. Davis., No. 18537.

• Decision Date: 24 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 18537.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Eugene DAVIS.

298 Conn. 1

1 A.3d 76

STATE of Connecticut

v.Eugene DAVIS.

No. 18537.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 29, 2010.

Decided Aug. 24, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

G. Douglas Nash, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Raheem L. Mullins, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David I. Cohen, state's attorney, and Richard Colangelo, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js. ^*

ZARELLA, J.

The defendant, Eugene Davis, appeals ¹ from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the first degree as a principal or accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59(a)(5) ² and 53a-8(a), ³ and sentence enhancement for two counts of commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm in violation General Statutes § 53-202k, ⁴ stemming from his alleged participation with his codefendant, Michael Franklin, in two shooting incidents involving the victim, Elliot Snider, one of which occurred on May 30, 2005, and the other on July 3, 2005. ⁵ On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly excluded certain impeachment evidence and unduly restricted his attorney's cross-examination of the victim in violation of evidentiary law and his rights to confrontation, compulsory process and to present a defense under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. ⁶ The state responds that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were proper because each of the defendant's claims of alleged impropriety involves the trial court's exclusion of inadmissible hearsay or patently irrelevant evidence. Accordingly, the state argues that the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional rights. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On May 30, 2005, at approximately 12 p.m., the victim and his friend, Patrick Priest, witnessed a fight between two men, Carlos and Marley, ⁷ at Neon Park in the city of Norwalk. During the fight, Carlos ended up on the ground bleeding. The victim attempted to break up the fight, at which time the defendant arrived with Franklin. The defendant and Franklin argued with the victim over what they perceived as the victim's participation in the beating of Carlos. Even though the victim attempted to explain that he was trying to stop the fight, the defendant and Franklin angrily left the park with Carlos. The victim remained at the park with Priest.

Within ten to fifteen minutes, the defendant and Franklin returned to the park driving a black Acura. The defendant got out of the driver's side of the vehicle and approached the victim, accusing him of having “a problem” with his friend, Carlos. The victim attempted to explain that he did not have a problem with Carlos, when Franklin exited from the passenger side of the vehicle with a bandana covering his face and a gun in his hand. Franklin chased the victim through the park and fired four to five gunshots at him. One of the bullets pierced the victim's right buttock. After shooting the victim, Franklin got back into the Acura and drove away with the defendant.

The victim made his way to a halfway house, where he asked someone to call an ambulance. He was “frustrated,” “aggravated,” and “panick[ed]” because this was his first gunshot wound, and he “didn't know how to react.” The police arrived soon afterward and asked the victim if he knew who had shot him. Although he knew his assailants, the victim replied “[n]o” because, among other things, he “fear[ed] for [his] life at that time.” Shortly thereafter, the victim was transported by ambulance to a hospital where he remained for two days.

Approximately one month later, on July 3, 2005, the victim and several friends attended a fireworks event at Veteran's Memorial Park in Norwalk. At around 9 p.m., while the group was walking across a bridge, the victim spotted Franklin driving up in a blue Dodge Neon. Franklin parked the car in the middle of the street, and the victim yelled to him to get out of the car and “fight a fair one....” While the victim was yelling at Franklin, the defendant approached the victim from behind and said, “I'm out [of] the car....” As soon as the victim turned around and saw the defendant, the defendant fired a gunshot into the victim's left arm. The defendant then fired a second shot into the victim's back and a third shot into one of the victim's legs. Thereafter, the defendant fled on foot and Franklin drove off in the car.

When the police arrived, the victim told them that the defendant had shot him. The victim also told the police that Franklin had shot him on May 30, 2005. The victim then was transported to the hospital by ambulance, where he underwent surgery for his injuries. As a result of the shooting, the victim sustained several permanent injuries, including paralysis in one of his legs from the knee down.

The Norwalk police later located the black Acura used in the May 30, 2005 shooting outside of a residence in Bridgeport where they found and arrested the defendant and Franklin. The defendant's mother owned the Acura. The defendant subsequently was charged with two counts of assault in the first degree as a principal or accessory in violation of §§ 53a-59(a)(5) and 53a-8(a), and two counts of commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm in violation of § 53-202k. The jury found the defendant guilty, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of twenty years incarceration. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly excluded certain impeachment evidence and unduly restricted his attorney's cross-examination of the victim in violation of the laws of evidence and his rights to confrontation, compulsory process and to present a defense under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) precluded his attorney from cross-examining the victim as to the victim's possible hope for or expectation of favorable treatment from the state with respect to the victim's pending felony charges in exchange for his testimony in the present case, and excluded from evidence, as inadmissible hearsay, a transcript from a hearing in one of the victim's pending criminal cases in which the victim's attorney indicated that she had secured favorable treatment or hoped for a favorable disposition in that case, (2) precluded his attorney from cross-examining the victim about his relationship with Jamie Hunt, who was the victim's girlfriend at the time of the shootings, after the victim testified that one of the reasons that he did not immediately inform the police of the identities of his assailants in the May 30, 2005 shooting was that Hunt was “close to their family,” ⁸ and the victim “didn't want to mess that up with her,” (3) precluded his attorney from impeaching the victim with the facts underlying his felony conviction of possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle and with the name of that offense after the victim testified that he did not carry a gun on May 30, 2005, or “on other days,” and (4) precluded his attorney from questioning the victim about his abusive and profane conduct before a Superior Court judge in 2004 and about a profane tattoo that the victim allegedly had, which concerned his disdain for the police.

We begin by setting forth the following legal principles that guide our analysis of the defendant's claims. “The sixth amendment to the [United States] constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to confront the witnesses against him.... The primary interest secured by confrontation is the right to cross-examination ... and an important function of cross-examination is the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying.... Cross-examination to elicit facts tending to show motive, interest, bias and prejudice is a matter of right and may not be unduly restricted....

“Impeachment of a witness for motive, bias and interest may also be accomplished by the introduction of extrinsic evidence.... The same rule that applies to the right to cross-examine applies with respect to extrinsic evidence to show motive, bias and interest; proof of the main facts is a matter of right, but the extent of the proof of details lies in the court's discretion.... The right of confrontation is preserved if defense counsel is permitted to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness....

“Although it is within the trial court's discretion to determine the extent of cross-examination and the admissibility of evidence, the preclusion of sufficient inquiry into a particular matter tending to show motive, bias and interest may result in a violation of the constitutional requirements [of the confrontation clause] of the sixth amendment.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colton, 227 Conn. 231, 248-49, 630 A.2d 577 (1993). “Further, the exclusion of defense evidence may deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense.” State v. DeJesus, 270 Conn. 826, 835, 856 A.2d 345 (2004).

“[T]he confrontation clause does not [however] suspend the rules of evidence to give the defendant the right to engage in unrestricted cross-examination.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 273 Conn. 330, 338-39, 869 A.2d 1224 (2005). Rather, “[a] defendant is ... bound by the rules of evidence in presenting a defense.... Although exclusionary rules of evidence cannot be applied mechanistically to deprive ...