State v. Colon, 16446.
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Citation | 272 Conn. 106,864 A.2d 666 |
Decision Date | 28 December 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 16446.,16446. |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Ivo COLON |
864 A.2d 666
272 Conn. 106
v.
Ivo COLON
No. 16446.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued October 30, 2003.
Decided December 28, 2004.
Robert J. Scheinblum, assistant state's attorney, with whom were John A. Connelly, state's attorney, Maureen M. Keegan, assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Judith Rossi, executive assistant state's attorney, Susan C. Marks, Michael O'Hare and Harry Weller, supervisory assistant state's attorneys, James G. Clark, Timothy J. Sugrue, Rita M. Shair and Marjorie Allen Dauster, senior assistant state's attorneys, and Bruce R. Lockwood, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and LAVERY, Js.
ZARELLA, J.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE FACTS .................................................................. 690 II. GUILT PHASE ISSUES ......................................................... 692 A. Motion to Suppress Statements and Other Tangible Evidence ............... 692 1. Entry into the Apartment at 418 Mill Street .......................... 696 2. Illegal Seizure ...................................................... 700 B. Voir Dire of Prospective Jurors ......................................... 702 1. Granting of State's Challenges for Cause ............................. 702 a. Venireperson J.B. ................................................. 706 b. Venireperson K.L. ................................................. 708 c. Venireperson K.S. ................................................. 708 2. Restrictions on the Scope of Voir Dire ............................... 710 a. Venireperson A.M. ................................................. 711 b. Venirepersons J.C. and C.H. ....................................... 712 c. Venireperson R.L. ................................................. 713 d. Venirepersons J.J. and N.A. ....................................... 714 e. Venireperson S.P. ................................................. 717 C. Evidentiary Rulings ..................................................... 718 1. Expert Testimony Regarding the Severity of the Victim's Injuries ..... 718 2. Admissibility of the Defendant's Written Confession to the Police .... 722 3. Sustaining of Objection During Defense Counsel's Closing Argument ............................................................. 724 4. Admission of Lieutenant O'Leary's Testimony .......................... 726 5. Admission of Neighbor's Testimony .................................... 727 D. Additional Evidentiary Claims Implicating the Defendant's Right to Present a Defense ....................................................... 727 1. Testimony Regarding the Defendant's Escape from Police Custody .............................................................. 728 2. Evidence Relating to the Defendant's Mother's Felony Conviction ...... 730 3. Exclusion of Evidence of Character for Untruthfulness ................ 732 4. Exclusion of Opinion Testimony Concerning Lieutenant O'Leary's Character for Untruthfulness ......................................... 734 5. Exclusion of the Statement that Virginia Quintero's Aunt Had Given to the Police .................................................. 735 6. Exclusion of the Testimony of the Defendant's Expert Witness ......... 736 7. Exclusion of the Testimony of Officer Michael Dimaria ................ 737 8. Exclusion of Certain Testimony of Virginia Quintero's Attorney ....... 738 9. Cumulative Error ..................................................... 739 E. Jury Instructions ....................................................... 739 1. Manslaughter by Omission Instruction ................................. 740 2. Accessory Liability Instruction ...................................... 744 3. Instruction Regarding the Defendant's Attempt to Provide Medical Assistance to the Victim ............................................. 745 4. Instructions Regarding Reasonable Doubt .............................. 747 F. Prosecutorial Misconduct ................................................ 748 1. The Assertion of Contradictory Theories with Respect to the Victim's Death ....................................................... 752 2. Questioning Regarding Privileged Attorney-Client Communications ....................................................... 754 3. Prosecutorial Misconduct During Closing and Rebuttal Arguments ............................................................ 755 G. Subpoenas Duces Tecum and the State's Motion to Quash ................... 758
On appeal to this court,5 the defendant challenges the judgment of conviction and the sentence of death. The defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. DeMarco, No. 30152.
...is evaluated on the basis of facts known at the time of entry." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 142-43, 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848, 126 S.Ct. 102, 163 L.Ed.2d 116 (2005). "[T]he emergency doctrine is rooted in the co......
-
State v. Daniels, AC 40321
...offered solely to show its effect upon the hearer, [however], is not hearsay." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon , 272 Conn. 106, 195, 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848, 126 S. Ct. 102, 163 L. Ed. 2d 116 (2005). We conclude that the statement was not hearsay b......
-
State v. Santiago, SC 17413
...elaboration, in one-half dozen cases presenting facial challenges to the death penalty under the state constitution. See State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 383, 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848, 126 S. Ct. 102, 163 L. Ed. 2d 116 (2005); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 418, 824 A.......
-
State v. Anderson, AC 35432
...conviction. And it protects against multiple prosecutions for the same offense." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 294, 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848, 126 S. Ct. 102, 163 L. Ed. 2d 116 (2005). The United States Supreme Court has held that "......