State v. Crosby
Decision Date | 23 March 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 13384,13384 |
Citation | 36 Conn.App. 805,654 A.2d 371 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Rodney CROSBY. |
Susan M. Cormier, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Michael S. Taylor, certified legal intern, for appellant (defendant).
Richard F. Jacobson, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., and Jonathan C. Benedict, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).
Before EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, FOTI and LANDAU, JJ.
The defendant appeals 1 from judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes §§ 29-35 and 29-37(b) under one information, and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) under a separate information. 2 The defendant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seventy years. 3
On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court improperly (1) consolidated three informations for trial, (2) instructed the jury as to what evidence to consider in each case and as to the presumption of innocence, (3) excluded impeachment testimony, and (4) admitted identification evidence. The defendant also alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict of carrying a pistol without a permit. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The jury could reasonably have found the following facts. On May 10, 1991, at approximately 3 a.m., the defendant went to the home of the victim, Kyong Flemming, at 1414 Stratford Avenue in Bridgeport. At the time, the victim and her two young daughters were at home. The defendant entered and threatened to "blow the victim's brains out." He fired one shot in the house and then proceeded to follow the victim outside where several more shots were fired. The victim called her ten year old daughter's name, and when the child came outside she found her mother lying on the ground. The victim died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest, abdomen and upper and lower extremities. The defendant gave a written statement later that evening and confessed to shooting the victim four or five times with his nine millimeter gun. The casings found at the scene and the bullets that killed the victim came from a nine millimeter gun.
At approximately 5 a.m. that same morning, Laurie Thompson observed the defendant outside her house on Sixth Street near Stratford Avenue in Bridgeport, holding a man at gunpoint and asking about the girls inside. Thompson was in the house with her friend Lisa Campfield. They ran out the back door but encountered the defendant about two blocks away near Pettiway's Variety Store. The defendant shot Thompson in the leg with a handgun. A nine millimeter shell casing was found at the scene. The defendant also confessed to this shooting.
The third incident, which resulted in a declaration of mistrial after the jury failed to return a verdict on the charges of sexual assault and unlawful restraint, allegedly took place that same morning, on Union Avenue, after the murder. The alleged victim, D, had heard the gunshots and later had seen the body being moved from the scene of the crime. Thereafter, while she was walking home, she was allegedly restrained at gunpoint and sexually assaulted by the defendant who told her that he knew he was going to jail and that he had "shot two bitches."
The defendant first claims that the trial court improperly granted the state's motion to consolidate the three informations thereby raising the "potential for prejudice ... greater than that which existed in Boscarino and Horne." 4
General Statutes § 54-57 5 and Practice Book § 829 6 permit a defendant to be tried jointly on charges arising from separate cases. State v. Rose, 29 Conn.App. 421, 429-30, 615 A.2d 1058, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 923, 618 A.2d 529 (1992).
We recognize that the defendant's claim of possible prejudice from a joint trial results from the fact that when alleged crimes are so similar in time, place and circumstance, there is a danger that the jury may use evidence of one crime to convict the defendant of the other crimes. See State v. Oliver, 161 Conn. 348, 288 A.2d 81 (1971).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rose, supra, 29 Conn.App. at 430, 615 A.2d 1058. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that joinder did not result in substantial injustice in this case.
The defendant was charged with crimes based on three discrete, easily distinguishable factual scenarios that were similar in time and locality. Although there were similarities, the charges were easily separable as the victims were different and the chronology clear. The evidence, presented over a four day period through nineteen witnesses, was neither so complex nor so confusing as to be in any manner incomprehensible to the jury. It was organized chronologically and presented logically. The evidence was not commingled. The defendant at no time raised an objection to the manner in which the evidence was presented.
Further, where evidence of one incident can be admitted at the trial of the other incidents, separate trials would provide the defendant no significant benefit, and under such circumstances he would ordinarily not be substantially prejudiced by joinder. State v. Pollitt, 205 Conn. 61, 68, 530 A.2d 155 (1987); State v. Grant, 33 Conn.App. 133, 138, 634 A.2d 1181 (1993). Evidence of a criminal defendant's unconnected crime may be admissible when probative to show identity. State v. Smith, 10 Conn.App. 624, 629, 525 A.2d 116, cert. denied, 204 Conn. 809, 528 A.2d 1156 (1987). To be relevant on the issue of identity, a reasonable inference that the person who committed one crime also committed the other must be warranted. State v. King, 35 Conn.App. 781, 791, 647 A.2d 25 (1994). Here, evidence elicited as to an incident charged by one information was germane to the issues of identity and opportunity in either or both of the cases based on the other incidents.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the state's motion to consolidate. The joinder of the three incidents for a single trial did not result in substantial injustice to the defendant.
The defendant next claims that the trial court improperly instructed the jury as to what evidence to consider in each case, and also as to the presumption of innocence.
The defendant argues that the trial court failed to provide any guidance to the jury regarding what evidence to consider in each case and to caution the jury not to consider the commission of one crime as evidence of the commission of another. The defendant acknowledges that he neither filed a request to charge nor took an exception to the court's final instruction that he claims lacked the admonition. He claims review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), in that the failure "violated the defendant's constitutional due process rights by diluting the state's obligations to prove each element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt."
Under Golding, a defendant can prevail on an unpreserved claim of constitutional error Id., at 239-40, 567 A.2d 823. The first two conditions are determinations of whether a defendant's claim will be reviewed, and the third condition involves a review of the claim itself. Wilson v. Cohen, 222 Conn. 591, 603, 610 A.2d 1177 (1992).
The first two conditions of Golding are met here because there is an adequate record for review and the right not to be convicted except on proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a constitutional right. See Summerville v. Warden, 29 Conn.App. 162, 178 n. 4, 614 A.2d 842 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rogers
...a barrel length of less than twelve inches. The jury reasonably could have credited this undisputed testimony. See State v. Crosby, 36 Conn.App. 805, 820-21, 654 A.2d 371, cert. denied, 232 Conn. 921, 656 A.2d 669 (1995) (state not required to produce direct numerical evidence of length of ......
-
State v. Artis
...the picture of a single individual who generally resembles the person he saw” [internal quotation marks omitted] ); State v. Crosby, 36 Conn.App. 805, 819, 654 A.2d 371 (“[w]ithout question, almost any one-to-one confrontation between a victim and a suspect must convey the message that the ......
-
State v. Fuller
...489 U.S. 1097, 109 S. Ct. 1570, 103 L. Ed. 2d 937 (1989); State v. Adams, 225 Conn. 270, 277, 623 A.2d 42 (1993); State v. Crosby, 36 Conn. App. 805, 820, 654 A.2d 371, cert. denied, 232 Conn. 921, 656 A.2d 669 (1995). In addition, the jury may use its common sense in assessing the circumst......
-
State v. Abraham
...diminish the presumption of innocence standard. See State v. Lee, 53 Conn. App. 690, 700-701, 734 A.2d 136 (1999); State v. Crosby, 36 Conn. App. 805, 814-15, 654 A.2d 371, cert. denied, 232 Conn. 921, 656 A.2d 669 23. The defendant contends that the following statements by the prosecutor d......