State v. Annunziato
| Decision Date | 14 March 1978 |
| Citation | 387 A.2d 566,174 Conn. 376 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Francisco ANNUNZIATO. |
Victor P. Fasano, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
William F. Gallagher, Special Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Arnold Markle, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C. J. and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.
In a joint trial to a jury the defendant, Francisco Annunziato, and his father, Salvatore Annunziato, were convicted of conspiracy to murder one Edward Gould in violation of then General Statutes § 54-197 (now § 53a-48). To minimize confusion between the father and son Annunziatos, we will refer to each of them by his first name. The trial court denied Francisco's motion to set aside the verdict and he has appealed to this court from the judgment rendered on the verdict. Although Francisco assigns numerous errors we need consider only the claim that the court erred in excluding cross-examination of a state's witness, Bruce Pino, regarding narcotics charges pending against him at the time of trial. To establish the context of this claim, it is necessary to review briefly both the evidence introduced at trial 1 and subsequent proceedings involving Salvatore.
The state's chief witnesses against Salvatore and Francisco were Gould and Pino. There was evidence that the Annunziatos and Gould belonged to opposing groups of associates. Gould testified that on the night of August 10, 1968, he was drinking at a bar where Salvatore and Francisco were present. Gould observed Salvatore consulting with an associate, Richard Biondi. 2 When Gould left the bar after midnight he was met by Biondi and Francisco. Gould agreed to give them a ride to Francisco's car, and, while driving, he saw a gun in the rear view mirror. He was shot as he jumped from the moving car. About two years later Gould asked Salvatore why he tried to kill him, and Salvatore replied: "Because you killed my brother-in-law."
Pino, who belonged to the Annunziato group, was also at the bar that evening. He testified that immediately after Biondi talked to Salvatore, Biondi approached him and asked him to take Biondi's companion Regina home because he had "some business to do for Midgie (Salvatore)." Pino saw Biondi, Francisco and Gould get into Gould's car and drive away. On the next day, August 11, at a restaurant Pino observed Salvatore and Francisco with others. Salvatore said, "Frankie can't do nothing right." Pino left the restaurant with Francisco, who told Pino he had shot Gould and related details of the shooting.
Salvatore appealed his conviction to this court and we denied the appeal in State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 363 A.2d 1011. Among the errors claimed by Salvatore was that the court improperly excluded cross-examination of Pino concerning pending narcotics charges for the purpose of showing bias, motive and interest. We found the court's ruling erroneous because evidence of pending charges might have tended to show an expectation or hope for immunity or leniency in return for Pino's testimony. We decided that the error was harmless, however, on the ground that evidence of pending charges would have been cumulative and of no real significance in view of considerable evidence showing the circumstances surrounding Pino's decision to testify, as well as the argument of defense counsel and the court's charge to the jury. Defense counsel brought out that Pino had been convicted of possession of burglary tools, possession and passing of counterfeit money, four counts of statutory burglary, and conspiracy to commit bank robbery. Pino admitted that when he talked to the police about the Gould shooting he was hoping for leniency on the bank robbery charge, and that he subsequently received a suspended sentence. Pino also admitted that he had confessed in writing to the crime of arson, but had never been prosecuted for this crime. State v. Annunziato, supra, 524-26, 363 A.2d 1011.
Salvatore exhausted his state remedies and brought a successful habeas corpus action in the federal courts. United States ex rel. Annunziato v. Manson, 425 F.Supp. 1272 (D.Conn.), affirmed, 566 F.2d 410 (2d Cir.). The Second Circuit determined that the state had suppressed evidence of an agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mastropetre
...these cases, however, the excluded evidence was clearly relevant and material to a critical issue in the case. See also State v. Annunziato, Conn., 387 A.2d 566, p. 568. As we have noted, the testimony which the court excluded was not of such a character. The defendant's right to confront w......
-
State v. Orsini
...disposition of criminal charges against those witnesses, violates the constitutional right of confrontation. See State v. Annunziato, 174 Conn. 376, 379, 387 A.2d 566 (1978). That principle is wholly inapplicable to the questions which are the subject of the rulings challenged here. Not onl......
-
State v. Streater
...State v. Wilson, supra, 188 Conn. at 720, 453 A.2d 765; State v. Corley, 177 Conn. 243, 246, 413 A.2d 826 (1979); State v. Annunziato, 174 Conn. 376, 380, 387 A.2d 566 (1978). The denial or undue restriction of the right to confrontation constitutes constitutional error. Davis v. Alaska, 41......
-
Gaskin v. Comm'r of Corr.
...where the defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights to confront the witnesses against him were violated. State v. Annunziato , 174 Conn. 376, 379–80, 387 A.2d 566 (1978). This reversal stemmed from the related federal habeas corpus proceedings of the defendant's father, who was his ......