State v. Billie

• Citation: 707 A.2d 324,47 Conn.App. 678
• Decision Date: 17 February 1998
• Docket Number: No. 15347,15347
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Maurice BILLIE.
• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut

Page 324

707 A.2d 324

47 Conn.App. 678

STATE of Connecticut v. Maurice BILLIE.

No. 15347.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 7, 1997.

Decided Feb. 17, 1998.

James B. Streeto, Special Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was Michael D. Quinn, Law Student Intern, for appellant (defendant).

John A. East III, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, State's Attorney, and Gary Nicholson Senior Assistant State's Attorney, for appellee (State).

Before LAVERY, FRANCIS X. HENNESSY and DUPONT, JJ.

FRANCIS X. HENNESSY, Judge.

The defendant, Maurice Billie, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of manslaughter in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-55, ¹ one count of commission of a class A, B, or C felony with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53-202k, and one count of carrying a firearm without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) struck the testimony of the defendant's expert witness regarding behavioral changes caused by the use of an intoxicant known as illy, (2) instructed the jury that it should draw an inference if the inference was reasonable and (3) denied the defendant's motion to suppress his confession. In addition, the defendant asks this court to declare General Statutes § 53-202k unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and as a cruel and unusual punishment, and to vacate his conviction under that statute.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On September 3, 1994, the defendant spent the evening drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana and illy. ² The next day, the defendant went to a cookout hosted by friends where he and two friends smoked "blunts." ³

Later in the day, the defendant met his friend Andre Cinicola, who had a .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol in a shoulder holster. The defendant put on the holster and weapon and covered them with a leather jacket. The defendant agreed to purchase marijuana for Cinicola and two female friends. The defendant then borrowed a black Mazda Miata from Marquis Clark, and he and Cinicola drove to Congress Avenue in New Haven to purchase marijuana from curbside dealers. During this time, acquaintances of the defendant drove up in a gray Chrysler and told him and Cinicola that members of a gang known as the Stickup Boys were nearby driving in a blue Mustang. The Stickup Boys were a gang that had recently engaged in a shooting and robbing spree in the inner city neighborhoods and housing projects in the New Haven area. The occupants of the Chrysler stated that they intended to "get" the Stickup Boys and drove off to find them. The defendant and Cinicola followed.

Minutes later, the Chrysler and the Miata came upon a blue Mustang with tinted windows. Believing that the Mustang was occupied by the Stickup Boys, the drivers of the Chrysler and the Miata pulled behind the car, and the occupants of the Chrysler fired several shots at the Mustang. The Mustang fled at a high speed up Sherman Avenue, with the other two cars in pursuit. Attempting to overtake the Mustang, the other cars ran red lights and stop signs, traveling in excess of fifty miles per hour and swerving in and out of oncoming traffic.

The defendant positioned the Miata alongside the driver's side window of the Mustang. Cinicola took the pistol from the defendant and fired two shots at the Mustang. The pistol jammed and Cinicola attempted to clear the weapon while the pursuit continued. Cinicola fired two more shots at the Mustang. One of the bullets struck the driver in the head, either killing or incapacitating him instantly and causing him to lose control of the car. The Mustang crashed into a nearby office building. The defendant also lost control of the Miata, which jumped the curb and skidded sideways along the sidewalk until it collided with a utility pole located seventy feet from the Mustang. The last portion of the chase and shootout was observed by three New Haven police officers who were near the location of the car crashes.

The police officers found Cinicola on the sidewalk next to the Miata. The defendant was trapped in the driver's seat, and rescue personnel had to cut him out of the car before they could transport him to a hospital. Two passengers in the backseat of the Mustang had minor injuries and the two passengers in the front seat each suffered fatal gunshot wounds. The driver, George Goforth, was killed by a single gunshot wound to the head. The front seat passenger, Roshawnda Crenshaw, was killed by a single gunshot wound to the chest. Ballistics testing confirmed that the bullet that killed Crenshaw was fired from Cinicola's gun. The bullet that killed Goforth passed through his skull and was never recovered.

The murder weapon was recovered near the Miata and tests revealed Cinicola's left index fingerprint. Several shell casings were recovered and several live, unfired rounds were found in the passenger compartment of the Miata. No weapon was found in the Mustang, and evidence later revealed that the defendant knew all four occupants and was a close friend of the two who were killed and that none of them was connected to the Stickup Boys. The tinted windows of the Mustang had prevented the defendant and Cinicola from identifying the occupants of the Mustang.

I

The defendant first claims that the trial court improperly struck the testimony of the defendant's expert witness regarding behavioral changes caused by the use of illy. He argues that the striking of the testimony violated his right to present a defense under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. We are unpersuaded.

The following additional facts are necessary to our resolution of this claim. Over the objection of the prosecution, the defendant introduced the testimony of Jeremy August, a psychiatrist, on the general effects of the drug illy. During cross-examination, August testified that he was not testifying as to the effects of illy on the defendant in particular and that he had not reviewed the defendant's police reports or medical records. Defense counsel objected, stating that August "was not brought in here to testify about [the defendant but only] as an expert to testify about the effects of illy on individuals who ingest it .... not whether [the defendant] ingested it." The trial court then excused the jury and, over the defendant's objection, ordered the entire testimony of August stricken as irrelevant.

"The defendant's rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to present a defense do not give him the right to have admitted any evidence he chooses. State v. Negron, 221 Conn. 315, 328, 603 A.2d 1138 (1992). In the exercise of his rights, the defendant, as well as the state, must comply with the established rules of evidence and procedure. Id.; State v. Kemp, 199 Conn. 473, 479, 507 A.2d 1387 (1986). State v. Boles, 223 Conn. 535, 550, 613 A.2d 770 (1992)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 46 Conn.App. 285, 291, 699 A.2d 250 (1997).

"[T]he trial court has wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony and, unless that discretion has been abused or the ruling involves a clear misconception of the law, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed. State v. Campbell, 225 Conn. 650, 654, 626 A.2d 287 (1993); State v. Kemp, [199 Conn. 473, 476, 507 A.2d 1387 (1986) ]; State v. Palmer, 196 Conn. 157, 166, 491 A.2d 1075 (1985); Siladi v. McNamara, 164 Conn. 510, 513, 325 A.2d 277 (1973); Coffin v. Laskau, 89 Conn. 325, 330, 94 A. 370 (1915). State v. Esposito, 235 Conn. 802, 834, 670 A.2d 301 (1996). Expert testimony should be admitted when: (1) the witness has a special skill or knowledge directly applicable to a matter in issue, (2) that skill or knowledge is not common to the average person, and (3) the testimony would be helpful to the court or jury in considering the issues...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Correa, 241 Conn. 322, 353-54, 696 A.2d 944 (1997).

"Relevant evidence is evidence that has a logical tendency to aid the trier in the determination of an issue. Pitt v. Kent, 149 Conn. 351, 357, 179 A.2d 626 (1962). One fact is relevant to another if in the common course of events the existence of one, alone or with other facts, renders the existence of the other either more certain or more probable. State v. Blake, 69 Conn. 64, 76, 36 A. 1019 (1897).... Evidence is irrelevant or too remote if there is such a want of open and visible connection between the evidentiary and principal facts that, all things considered, the former is not worthy or safe to be admitted in the proof of the latter. State v. Kelly, 77 Conn. 266, 269, 58 A. 705 (1904). A party is not required to offer such proof of a fact that it excludes all other hypotheses; it is sufficient if the evidence tends to make the existence or nonexistence of any other fact more probable or less probable than it would be without such evidence. State v. Briggs, [179 Conn. 328, 333, 426 A.2d 298 (1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 912, 100 S.Ct. 3000, 64 L.Ed.2d 862 (1980) ].... Evidence is not rendered inadmissible because it is not conclusive. All that is required is that the evidence tend to support a relevant fact even to a slight degree, so long as it is not prejudicial or merely cumulative. State v. Miller, 202 Conn. 463, 482, 522 A.2d 249 (1987); State v. Morrill, 197 Conn. 507, 548, 498 A.2d 76 (1985). C. Tait & J. LaPlante, [Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed.1988) ] § 8.1.1, pp. 225-26. State v. Prioleau, [235 Conn. 274, 305-306, 664 A.2d 743 (1995) ]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kiser, 43 Conn.App. 339, 361-62, 683 A.2d 1021, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 945, 686 A.2d 122, cert. denied,...