State v. Dillon, 12838

• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut
• Citation: 640 A.2d 630,34 Conn.App. 96
• Decision Date: 07 July 1994
• Docket Number: No. 12838,12838
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Norman DILLON.

Page 630

640 A.2d 630 34 Conn.App. 96 STATE of Connecticut
v.
Norman DILLON. No. 12838. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued Nov. 30, 1993.
Decided April 12, 1994.
Certification Granted Limited to the
Following Issue July 7, 1994.

Page 631

[34 Conn.App. 97] Susan M. Hankins, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).

Carolyn K. Longstreth, Asst. State's Atty., with whom were James Turcotte, Asst. State's Atty., and, on the brief, Michael Dearington, State's Atty., for appellee (State).

Before EDWARD Y. [34 Conn.App. 96] O'CONNELL, FOTI and HEIMAN, JJ.

[34 Conn.App. 97] HEIMAN, Judge.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a(a). ¹ On appeal, [34 Conn.App. 98] the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) refused to instruct the jury on self-defense, (2) prohibited him from offering evidence of prior criminal misconduct of the victim and two state's witnesses, (3) admitted a transcript of the testimony of a witness from the codefendant's probable cause hearing, (4) allowed the prosecution to submit claims that the defendant had intimidated state witnesses, (5) allowed the prosecutor to make improper and unlawful arguments to the jury, (6) charged the jury on consciousness of guilt, (7) granted the consolidation of the defendant's and the codefendant's cases, (8) encouraged jury deliberations during the presentation of evidence, (9) conducted a jury trial without having a twelve person jury through all portions of the trial, and (10) instructed the jury on the element of intent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts are set forth in the companion case of State v. Carter, 34 Conn.App. 58, 640 A.2d 610 (1994). The additional facts necessary for a proper resolution of this appeal are as follows. The group that fired bullets at Willie Peterson and Wilbert Cannon included the defendant. The day after the shooting, John Peterson identified the defendant, from a photographic array, as being at the scene of the shooting. On December 30, 1989, Wilbert Cannon identified the defendant as being involved in the shooting. On January 4, 1990, Detective Anthony Dilullo of the New Haven police department interviewed Maria Diaz about the shooting. During the interview, Diaz identified a picture of the defendant as being of one of the persons involved in the shootout.

Page 632

[34 Conn.App. 99] I

The defendant's first, second, third fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth claims have been fully addressed in the companion case of State v. Carter, supra, 34 Conn.App. 58, 640 A.2d 610. That decision is dispositive of those claims.

II

The defendant next claims that the trial court improperly granted the consolidation of the defendant's and the codefendant's cases. We are unpersuaded.

Certain additional facts are necessary for a proper resolution of this issue. On January 16, 1991, the trial court granted the state's motion to consolidate the two trials pursuant to Practice Book § 829. ² The defendant posits that, despite the trial court's jury instruction that the cases were separate and that the jury must consider the evidence separately as to each defendant, the consolidation denied him his constitutional rights to cross-examination, confrontation and a fair trial. The defendant asserts that the trial court admitted evidence that would not have been admissible had the case not been consolidated and that the jury could not differentiate between evidence admissible against the codefendant, Che Carter, and evidence admissible against him. Specifically, the defendant claims that the transcript of Darden's testimony at Carter's probable cause hearing would not have been allowed into evidence against him. Further, the defendant claims that evidence of a threat by Carter against Cannon would not have been admitted against him. The defendant also claims that a jury instruction concerning consciousness of guilt [34 Conn.App. 100] would not have been given by the trial court had the state not introduced evidence of Carter's attempt to hide his identity when the police attempted to arrest him.

"Whether to consolidate or sever the trials of defendants involved in the same criminal incident lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.... Ordinarily justice is better subserved where the parties are tried together.... Joint trials of persons jointly indicted or informed against are the rule, and separate trials the exception resting in the discretion of the court.... A...