State v. Buster, 14545
Decision Date | 09 February 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 14545,14545 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Douglas W. BUSTER. |
Michael A. Fitzpatrick, Special Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Richard F. Jacobson, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., and John Smriga, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BORDEN, BERDON and KATZ, JJ.
The defendant, Douglas W. Buster, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's ruling allowing the introduction into evidence of certain portions of a witness' out-of-court written statement. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a(1) and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes §§ 29-35(a) and 29-37(b). On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed that, contrary to State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743, 513 A.2d 86, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S.Ct. 597, 93 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986), the trial court had improperly admitted into evidence certain statements of a nonparty witness contained in the written statement of another witness. The Appellate Court, however, concluded that the statements had been properly admitted by the trial court as a prior inconsistent statement under the three-pronged Whelan test, and affirmed the judgment. State v. Buster, 27 Conn.App. 263, 273, 606 A.2d 9 (1992).
We granted the defendant's petition for certification limited to the following two issues: 1 (1) "Was the Appellate Court correct in holding that the trial court properly admitted into evidence certain remarks attributed to a nonparty witness contained in the written statement of another witness, pursuant to State v. Whelan, [supra.]?" and (2) "If the ruling was erroneous, was it harmful?" State v. Buster, 222 Conn. 909-10, 608 A.2d 692 (1992). We conclude that the trial court improperly admitted the remarks, but that their admission was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
The relevant facts were stated by the Appellate Court in its opinion. "The victim, Robert J. Cioppa, Jr., and a friend, Gary Lester, drove into the parking lot of a Bridgeport housing project at about 12:30 a.m. on March 4, 1989, seeking to buy crack cocaine. Cioppa and Lester had bought drugs there twice earlier in the evening of March 3, 1989. Upon driving into the lot, Cioppa was approached by a drug dealer named Sean, who had sold him narcotics earlier that night. The defendant then approached Cioppa's car window in an attempt to sell him drugs. When Cioppa indicated that he wanted to buy drugs from Sean instead, the defendant drew a gun.
State v. Buster, supra, 27 Conn.App. at 265-68, 606 A.2d 9.
The defendant also called Hanks to the stand. Hanks admitted that he had been present in the parking lot when a car had pulled in. He approached and conversed with the driver. He denied having had any argument and disclaimed any responsibility for the homicide. Hanks gave two separate statements to the police implicating the defendant. On cross-examination, he explained that prior to the shooting, Cioppa had asked him to "get my friend," in response to which the defendant had grabbed Hanks, pointed the gun at him and said "Ronell ain't got nothing to do with this, I'll shoot him too." Hanks testified that as he had walked away, he heard a shot, heard the car pull away striking a van, and heard the defendant continue shooting.
To rebut the defendant's claim that Hanks was the assailant, the state called Anthony Michael Brown. Brown testified that during the early morning hours of March 4, 1989, he had been at home when he heard gunshots, but that he had not seen the shooting. Brown could not recall much about a meeting with the police at his home on the Sunday after the shooting, nor could he recall what he had told the police in his written statement. After refreshing his recollection by reviewing his statement, Brown remembered having told the police that he had seen a long grayish colored .38 revolver in a bag at his home on the Sunday after the shooting. He also recalled having told the police that a conversation regarding the gun had taken place in the presence of the defendant, the defendant's cousin, Kenneth "Dimpy" Buster (Dimpy), and his own cousin, Jehu. Brown repudiated the statement, however, claiming he had given it while under the influence of narcotics and in response to police threats. He claimed that he had never seen a gun and that the three named individuals had not been to his home on that Sunday. 2
At this point, the state sought to introduce Brown's written statement pursuant to State v. Whelan, supra. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Woodson, 14448
...513 A.2d 86, quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1933, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); see also State v. Buster, 224 Conn. 546, 556, 620 A.2d 110 (1993). "The jury can, therefore, determine whether to believe the present testimony, the prior statement, or neither. Moreover......
-
State v. Fleming
...v. Grant, supra, 221 Conn. at 100-101, 602 A.2d 581; State v. Alvarez, 216 Conn. 301, 314, 579 A.2d 515 (1990); State v. Buster, 224 Conn. 546, 557-58, 620 A.2d 110 (1993); State v. Whelan, supra, 200 Conn. at 750, 513 A.2d 86. This is because "prior statements are, necessarily, made closer......
-
State v. Wager, 10962
...Grant, 221 Conn. 93, 100-101, 602 A.2d 581 (1992); State v. Alvarez, 216 Conn. 301, 314, 579 A.2d 515 (1990); see State v. Buster, 224 Conn. 546, 557-58, 620 A.2d 110 (1993); State v. Whelan, supra, 200 Conn. at 750, 513 A.2d 86. None of these cases requires that the statement be signed at ......
-
State v. Skakel
...different if the error had not been committed. E.g., State v. Cavell, 235 Conn. 711, 721-22, 670 A.2d 261 (1996); State v. Buster, 224 Conn. 546, 561, 620 A.2d 110 (1993). According to a second line of cases, the defendant must show that the prejudice resulting from the impropriety was so s......