State v. Jenkins
Citation | 856 A.2d 383,271 Conn. 165 |
Decision Date | 21 September 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 16871.,16871. |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Robert JENKINS. |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state's attorney, and Rosita M. Creamer, former senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
Adele V. Patterson, assistant public defender, for the appellee (defendant).
SULLIVAN, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, Js.
A jury found the defendant, Robert Jenkins, guilty of manslaughter in the first degree1 in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a)(1)2 and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53-21, Public Acts 1995, No. 95-142, § 1.3 The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict,4 and the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant challenged only the validity of his conviction of intentional manslaughter,5 claiming that the trial court improperly had: (1) allowed the state to impeach his trial testimony with certain department of correction records that were protected by the psychiatrist-patient privilege; and (2) denied him a fair trial by instructing the jury to disregard any evidence of the defendant's alleged intoxication if that evidence did not negate the element of intent. The Appellate Court agreed with the defendant's claim regarding the psychiatrist-patient privilege and granted the defendant a new trial on the intentional manslaughter charge. State v. Jenkins, 73 Conn.App. 150, 171, 807 A.2d 485 (2002). In light of that conclusion, the Appellate Court did not reach the defendant's claim of instructional impropriety. We granted the state's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issues: First, "[d]id the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant did not waive a claim of privilege with respect to information relating to the magnitude of his heroin habit contained in his [department of correction] record[s]?" State v. Jenkins, 262 Conn. 917, 811 A.2d 1293 (2002). Second, "[d]id the Appellate Court properly reverse the defendant's conviction absent any harmless error analysis and, if harmless error analysis is appropriate, was any error harmless?" Id. Although we agree with the Appellate Court that the defendant did not waive his right to invoke the psychiatrist-patient privilege with respect to his department of correction records, we further conclude that the improper disclosure of those records was harmless. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court in part6 and remand the case to that court for a determination of the defendant's claim of instructional error.7
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts that the jury reasonably could have found and the following relevant procedural history. "The defendant lived with his girlfriend, Lisa Pettiford, and her three children, including the victim, in an apartment in Hartford. The victim was the youngest of the three children and was twenty-three months old at the time of his death. On February 9, 1996, the defendant arrived home in the morning after consuming heroin, cocaine and marijuana the previous evening and earlier that morning. The defendant continued to consume narcotics and fell asleep on the couch. At some point in the late morning, Pettiford placed the victim in the defendant's care and went to a bake sale at [a] community center near the apartment complex.
" On February 11, 1996, the chief medical examiner for the state of Connecticut, Harold Wayne Carver II, conducted an autopsy.... Carver concluded that the victim `died as a result of blunt traumatic head injury' and classified `the manner of death as homicide.'
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Artis
...v. Gordon, supra, 185 Conn. 419—has changed substantially since Gordon was decided. As our Supreme Court explained in State v. Jenkins, 271 Conn. 165, 856 A.2d 383 (2004): ''It is well settled that most improprieties, even those of constitutional magnitude, can be harmless and, therefore, d......
-
State v. Fay
...have sometimes used language suggesting that, when no statutory exception applies, the privilege is absolute. See State v. Jenkins, 271 Conn. 165, 183, 856 A.2d 383 (2004) ("in the absence of express consent by the patient, courts have no authority to create nonstatutory exceptions to the g......
-
State v. Dews
...of a strained connection between it and a fundamental constitutional right." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jenkins, 271 Conn. 165, 190, 856 A.2d 383 (2004). "[R]obing garden variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic garb of constitutional claims does not make ......
-
Freedom of Info. Officer v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 19371.
...... charged with providing comprehensive, client based services in the areas of mental health and substance abuse treatment to people in the state, including many people who have been found not guilty of crimes but are in need of psychiatric care and others who may be characterized as notorious. ...Institute of Living, 254 Conn. 321, 328–29, 757 A.2d 571 (2000). In State v. Jenkins, 73 Conn.App. 150, 162, 807 A.2d 485 (2002), rev'd in part on other grounds, 271 Conn. 165, 856 A.2d 383 (2004), the Appellate Court considered ......