State v. Boutilier

• Decision Date: 14 February 2012
• Docket Number: No. 32207.,32207.
• Citation: 36 A.3d 282,133 Conn. App. 493
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Matthew BOUTILIER.

133 Conn.App. 493

36 A.3d 282

STATE of Connecticut

v.Matthew BOUTILIER.

No. 32207.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Oct. 20, 2011.Decided Feb. 14, 2012.

Jodi Zils Gagne, special public defender, for the appellant(defendant).

Raheem L. Mullins, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Anne Mahoney, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee(state).

ROBINSON, BEAR and DUPONT, Js.

DUPONT, J.

The defendant, Matthew Boutilier, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–59 (a)(5) and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a–217 (a)(1).On appeal, the defendant claims that (1)the trial court's denial of two motions, which requested the court to “direct the [commissioner of the department of correction] to deliver the defendant into the supervised custody of his attorney,” violated the defendant's constitutional rights, (2)the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to allow the jury to view the crime scene and (3) prosecutorial impropriety deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following evidence was elicited at trial.In January, 2008, the defendant and his girlfriend, Katie Krantz, lived together in a house in Hartford.On the evening of January 11, 2008, Krantz and her friends, Becky Ramos and Yajaira Aponte, went to the home of a neighbor where the women drank alcohol.Ramos and Krantz also smoked marijuana and took ecstasy pills.At approximately 1 a.m., after returning home from a bar, the defendant went to the neighbor's house to retrieve Krantz.Krantz invited Ramos and Aponte to come to the house she shared with the defendant and their three children, who were not at home that night.Ramos and Aponte arrived at the house, and, subsequently, the three women decided to go out to purchase snacks and cigars.Krantz and Ramos intended to hollow out the cigars and fill them with marijuana so that they could continue to smoke marijuana.Krantz told the defendant of their plans to go out to purchase the cigars, and the defendant became angry, telling Krantz that he did not want her to leave the house.The defendant yelled at Krantz and said that, if she left the house, she should not come back.Krantz left with Ramos and Aponte, leaving her keys to the house on a table.

As the three women walked away from the house, the defendant threw some of Krantz' clothes outside onto the driveway.Ramos returned to the house to confront the defendant for his behavior.The defendant, who had gone inside and locked the door, unlocked the door and let Ramos into the house.Ramos and the defendant began arguing.Krantz and Aponte returned to the house and went inside.The argument between Ramos and the defendant became physical, and the two struggled in the kitchen in front of a door that led to a basement staircase.The defendant retrieved a .357 caliber revolver from a nearby shelf and shot Ramos in the head, killing her.Aponte ran across the kitchen, toward a telephone on the wall, and the defendant shot her in the chest.Aponte tried to escape through the back door of the house but, finding it locked, ran back toward the kitchen.The defendant met Aponte in the hallway and shot her a second time, at close range.Aponte survived her injuries.At trial, the defendant admitted to shooting Ramos and Aponte, but claimed that he believed they were going to harm him and that he had acted in self-defense.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of one count of assault in the first degree in violation of § 53a–59 (a)(5) and one count of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of § 53a–217 (a)(1),¹ and was sentenced to a total effective term of twenty-seven years of incarceration.This appeal followed.Additional facts will be set forth as they become necessary.

IMOTIONS FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY

The first portion of the defendant's appeal concerns the court's denial of two motions requesting the defendant's temporary release from the custody of the department of correction so that he could (1) visit the crime scene with his attorney and (2) participate in a mock jury preparation session.The defendant claims that the court's denial of these motions violated his constitutional rights.²We affirm the judgment of the court.

The following additional facts are relevant to our resolution of the defendant's claim.The defendant was held on a $2 million bond following his arrest.Thereafter, he remained in the custody of the department of correction.On August 31, 2009, the defendant made two oral motions to the court.The first motion sought permission for his temporary release from the custody of the department of correction into the supervised custody of defense counsel so that the defendant could visit the crime scene with his attorney.The second motion sought the defendant's temporary release for the purpose of attending a mock jury preparation session to be arranged and orchestrated by his attorney.The court reserved judgment on the motions, instructing the defendant to submit them in writing.On September 9, 2009, prior to the start of trial, the defendant filed a “Motion for Nontestimonial Evidence” wherein he moved the court to “direct the [commissioner of the department of correction] to deliver the defendant into the supervised custody of his attorney” so that he could “assist his attorney in his defense by inspecting and photographing the premises of the alleged crime....”On September 10, 2009, the court denied both of the defendant's motions.The court noted that defense counsel, “by way of oral amendment,” had incorporated the defendant's request to attend the mock jury preparation session into the defendant's written “Motion for Nontestimonial Evidence.”

On appeal, the defendant claims that the court's ruling violated his sixth amendment rights to the effective assistance of counsel, to present a defense and to confront witnesses against him.The defendant argues that his claim presents a mixed question of law and fact and that our review should therefore be plenary.The state urges us to review the trial court's decision under the abuse of discretion standard.

It is axiomatic that, as an appellate court, the function performed by the trial court in issuing its ruling will dictate the scope of our review.State v. Saucier,283 Conn. 207, 219, 926 A.2d 633(2007)(en banc).The scope of appellate review depends on a proper characterization of rulings made by the trial court.If the court has made findings of fact, appellate review concerns whether those findings were clearly erroneous.If the court has made conclusions of law, our review is plenary, and we must decide whether those conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the facts in the record.Beneduci v. Valadares,73 Conn.App. 795, 801, 812 A.2d 41(2002).The trial court in the present case never reached the question of whether a denial of the defendant's motions would effectuate a violation of his constitutional rights, but based its denial on security concerns attendant to his release from custody.

The “Motion for Nontestimonial Evidence” at issue is not the usual motion for evidence made by a party to litigation to view premises involved therein.Rather, it is a motion made by an incarcerated defendant to temporarily be released from the custody of the department of correction in order to view a crime scene with his attorney and participate in a mock jury preparation session while in the supervised custody of his attorney, without the existence of any pertinent rule or regulation of the department of correction governing the situation.³

The defendant argues that the court's denial of his motions effectuated a violation of his constitutional rights.However, he has failed to identify any constitutionally protected right directly implicated by the court's ruling.⁴In its oral decision, the court did not discuss or conclude that any constitutional right or rights of the defendant were involved in its denial of his motions.Furthermore, the defendant has not challenged any regulation of the department of correction as being unconstitutional.The defendant argues that his claim on appeal raises an issue of first impression before the appellate courts of Connecticut.He maintains that his claim is analogous “to the arguments made in many habeas cases ... that prison officials are impeding on prisoners' constitutional rights under the guise of safety concerns” and cites Turner v. Safley,482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64(1987), in support of his argument.Turner is not analogous to the present case, nor does it control our resolution of the defendant's claim.In contrast to Turner,the defendant's appeal does not involve a challenge to any rulings, regulations or procedure set forth by the department of correction.Indeed, the department of correction's view, if any, on the defendant's motions for temporary release from its custody was not made known to the court.

The court did not review any regulation or statute in denying the defendant's motions, and no argument was made to the court citing any regulation or statute.The court did not draw any conclusions of law requiring a plenary review;seeDoe v. Roe,246 Conn. 652, 660, 717 A.2d 706(1998); and we do not conclude that the denial of the defendant's motions interfered with a basic constitutional right.There is no legal conclusion of the court at issue.Accordingly, there exists no “mixed question of law and fact” to be reviewed on appeal.If an incarcerated individual had been accused of committing a crime in subzero weather, his inability to replicate the condition of temperature, via a desired visit to the North Pole in January, could not change a motion for...