State v. Ghant
| Decision Date | 31 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | AC 44146 |
| Citation | 212 Conn.App. 662,276 A.3d 1004 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Jovan Marquis GHANT |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, with whom was Emily M. Shouse, former certified legal intern, for the appellant (defendant).
Nathan J. Buchok, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and Jason Germain, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Prescott, Clark and DiPentima, Js.
The defendant, Jovan Marquis Ghant, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a), assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61 (a) (1), and threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his right to self-representation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution1 by denying his request to represent himself and (2) violated his right to confront the witnesses against him under the sixth amendment by improperly limiting cross-examination of the state's key witness. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On the basis of the evidence admitted at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In early July, 2018, the victim, B,2 met the defendant in New Haven, and, thereafter, the two entered into a relationship. B and the defendant were homeless and were living together in a car that was owned by the defendant's friend. On July 21, 2018, at about 8:30 p.m., B and the defendant were inside the car, which was parked along a sidewalk in the Wooster Street neighborhood of New Haven. B and the defendant began arguing because the defendant thought that B had been flirting with the defendant's friends earlier in the day.
Francesca Djerejian and her boyfriend, Craig Vargas, who were visiting New Haven for the weekend, witnessed the argument. Djerejian and Vargas were walking from the Omni Hotel, where they were staying, to the Wooster Street neighborhood to have pizza at a restaurant. En route to the restaurant, the couple saw the car parked along the sidewalk. As they passed the car, they heard B and the defendant arguing inside. B was sitting in the passenger seat while the defendant was sitting in the driver's seat. B then got out of the car and walked to the sidewalk. The defendant also exited the car and followed B onto the sidewalk. As B was walking away from the car, the defendant said, "don't think I won't hurt you ...."
The defendant then punched B, and she fell to the ground. The defendant continued to punch B as she was on the ground.3 While the defendant was punching B, Djerejian and Vargas decided to keep walking away from the car and toward the end of the block out of concern for their own safety. Upon reaching the end of the block, Djerejian called 911. The assault was still taking place when Djerejian called 911 and when she and Vargas left the area.
While B was on the ground, she tried to fight back but could not get up off the sidewalk because the defendant continued to punch her and, at one point, choked her. The defendant then dragged her from the sidewalk back to the car where he choked her again. While the defendant was choking B he said, "[d]o you want to die ...?"
New Haven Police Officers John Brangi and Vincent M. Destefanis responded to the 911 call. When the officers arrived, they placed the defendant in handcuffs, and Destefanis completed a patdown of the defendant The defendant was bleeding from a cut above his right eye.
Meanwhile, Brangi spoke with B, and she recounted the details of the assault to him. At one point during the conversation, B stated that she did not want to go to jail. B was upset, frightened, and scared as she spoke with him. Her face was extremely swollen, she was spitting out blood, had marks around her neck, and scrapes on her feet.
B was transferred to Yale New Haven Hospital for further treatment of her injuries.4 Mary Ellen Lyon, an emergency room physician, treated B at the hospital. B's cheek and jaw were very swollen, her chest was tender, and she had cuts and scrapes on one of her legs.5 B remained in the hospital for three days.
The defendant was transported to Yale New Haven Hospital, Saint Raphael Campus, to be evaluated. Destefanis followed the ambulance to the hospital. The defendant subsequently was released from the hospital and arrested.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of § 53a-95 (a), assault in the third degree in violation of § 53a-61 (a) (1), and threatening in the second degree in violation of § 53a-62 (a) (1). The defendant was found not guilty of strangulation in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-64bb (a). The defendant pleaded guilty to two part B informations, each charging him with being a persistent offender under General Statutes § 53a-40d. The defendant was sentenced to a total effective term of seven years of incarceration, execution suspended after four years, followed by three years of probation. This appeal followed.
Additional procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant first claims that the trial court violated his right to self-representation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution.6 The defendant specifically argues that the court improperly denied his clear and unequivocal request to represent himself. We disagree.
The following procedural history is relevant to our resolution of this claim. On January 18, 2019, a hearing was held before the court, Markle, J . At the time, Attorney Maureen Murphy, a public defender, represented the defendant. At the commencement of the hearing, Murphy stated, The following colloquy then occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Epright v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... their cases? Do counsel for plaintiffs want counsel for defense to engage in ex parte contact with experts retained (and paid) by them? To state the obvious, neither partyplaintiff or defendant[is] permitted to directly engage in ex parte discussions with their opponent's expert. We have, like ... ...