State v. Gomes
| Decision Date | 24 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | AC 41364 |
| Citation | 193 Conn.App. 79,218 A.3d 1063 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Wagner GOMES |
Lisa J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, Rocky Hill, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, Bridgeport, and Margaret E. Kelley, state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).
Alvord, Moll and Bear, Js.
The defendant, Wagner Gomes, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2).1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in omitting from its jury instruction his proposed sentence, "[h]owever, you may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state’s case,"2 and, in doing so, deprived him of his right to present a defense of investigative inadequacy.3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In the early morning hours of September 12, 2015, the victim, Edilene Brandao, along with several other persons, including Raphael Morais,4 attended a birthday party at the Brazilian Sports Club (club), located at 29 Federal Street, in Bridgeport. Shortly after arriving, the victim had one drink, and Morais went to the bar to get a drink for himself. Morais confronted the defendant's girlfriend, who was at the bar, pushed her, and made offensive remarks to her. A fight then broke out inside the club between the defendant and Morais. Security guards intervened and separated them. The defendant was taken outside, and Morais was taken to the patio.
The victim went to the patio with Morais. There was a fence at the back of the patio, and the victim had her back to that fence. The victim proceeded to ask Morais why he was fighting, and Morais responded, "it's him." The victim then turned to face the fence and saw the defendant standing approximately two feet away from her, on the outside of the fence, with a bottle in his hand. The defendant then struck the victim on the fore-head with the bottle.
The club's owner, Demetrio Ayala, Jr., knew the defendant because he visited the club several times per month. Ayala observed the fight between the defendant and another person known to him as "Rafael."5 Ayala, after hearing shouting on the patio, went to investigate and discovered that the victim was bleeding. Ayala then went out the front door of the club in order to try to find the defendant, whom he saw in the parking lot running away from the club. Ayala subsequently called the police.
Before the police arrived, the victim was transported to St. Vincent's Medical Center in Bridgeport by private car in the company of several persons who were in the club that night. She arrived at the hospital at about 12:30 a.m., where she was seen by a triage nurse and received treatment for the bleeding and pain. Several hours later, the victim was also treated by a plastic surgeon and then released.6
John Topolski and Matthew Goncalves, officers with the Bridgeport Police Department, were among the first police officers to arrive at the club shortly after 1:30 a.m. Upon their arrival, they observed that "[the scene] was a mess" and that "there [were] maybe a hundred people scattered amongst the streets." Officer Topolski briefly spoke with Morais, who had, he observed, a swollen face, one eye that was swollen shut, profuse facial bleeding, clothes covered in blood, and an apparently dislocated shoulder
.7 Once the scene was secure, the officers departed for the hospital, intending to question Morais, who also had been taken to the hospital before the police completed their initial on-site investigation. While the officers were en route to the hospital, they received a radio dispatch informing them that a woman, who also had been injured at the club, was already at the hospital.
When the officers arrived at the hospital, Officer Topolski went in search of the injured woman, and Officer Goncalves went in search of Morais. Although Officer Goncalves located Morais, he was unable to speak with Morais because his wounds
were being treated, and he was being prepared for surgery. Officer Topolski located the victim in the waiting area of the hospital's emergency department and identified her as the woman who had been injured at the club. The victim was in the company of approximately five other individuals. Officer Topolski observed that the victim was crying and visibly shaken. She had blood covering her face and was holding gauze to her head. Despite her physical and emotional condition, the victim was coherent enough to provide information to Officer Topolski. In her verbal statement to Officer Topolski, the victim denied that Morais may have been the aggressor in some type of altercation with her. Officer Topolski, while he was at the hospital, also obtained the name of the defendant, but it was not clear from whom he received that information.8
On October 2, 2015, the victim went to the Bridgeport police station with her attorney, where she was interviewed by Detective Paul Ortiz in the presence of Sergeant Gilbert Valentine about the events that occurred on September 12, 2015. Detective Ortiz reviewed Officer Topolski's report of the events. Through this report, Detective Ortiz learned that the defendant might be a suspect. Detective Ortiz prepared a photographic array that included a photograph of the defendant, which he showed to the victim. When the victim viewed the photograph of the defendant, she became emotional and started to cry. She examined the entire array and then selected the defendant's photograph, on which she wrote that she was "100 percent" confident that he was the person who had attacked her. The defendant was subsequently arrested.
At trial, the defendant sought to persuade the jury that reasonable doubt existed regarding the victim's identification of the defendant as the person who assaulted her. The main defense advanced by the defendant was that the police had conducted an inadequate investigation of the incident.
During closing arguments, defense counsel argued that Defense counsel also argued that the police "spent ninety minutes on this investigation," and that the case
In connection with his defense of inadequate police investigation, the defendant had filed a written request to charge the jury, which provided in relevant part: 9
On October 27, 2018, the court held a charge conference. In discussing the final charge, the court told defense counsel that it would be charging on the adequacy of the police investigation, in a form that was somewhat similar to the defendant's requested instruction, but that "[i]t may be a little bit different."
The court instructed the jury in relevant part: Defense counsel objected to the court's omission of point three of his requested instruction.
The jury subsequently found the defendant guilty of assault in the second degree in violation of § 53a-60 (a) (2). The court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict and imposed a total effective sentence of five years of imprisonment, execution suspended after two years, followed by three years of probation. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the jury instructions, as given, deprived him of his right to present a defense of investigative inadequacy. Specifically, the defendant argues that the court erred in failing to include point three of his requested jury charge, which reads: "However, you may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state's case." The defendant argues that without the inclusion of this requested sentence, the jury would not "have understood how to use the evidence [the defendant] was able to elicit about the inadequacies of [the police investigation]." We conclude that the court did not err in omitting point three from the jury charge.
We begin by setting forth the standard of review and legal principles that guide our analysis. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gomes
...two years, followed by three years of probation." (Footnote added; footnotes in original; footnotes omitted.) State v. Gomes , 193 Conn. App. 79, 81–86, 218 A.3d 1063 (2019). The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that "the jury instructions, as given, deprived him of his r......
-
State v. Petersen
...the model instructions is a relevant and persuasive factor in our analysis ....’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gomes , 193 Conn. App. 79, 88, 218 A.3d 1063, cert. granted on other grounds, 334 Conn. 902, 219 A.3d 798 (2019).11 The defendant failed to do so twice—once at 10 a......
-
King v. Comm'r of Corr.
... ... Bansley IV, New Haven, for the appellant (petitioner). James M. Ralls, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Eva Lenczewski, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee ... ...
-
State v. Gomes
...assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 193 Conn. App. 79, 218 A.3d 1063 (2019), is granted, limited to the following issues:"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court's ‘investigative ......