State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 22 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | 19098.,Nos. 19097,s. 19097 |
| Citation | 320 Conn. 22,128 A.3d 431 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Shelvonn JONES. |
Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen J. Sedensky III, state's attorney, and David Holzbach, former senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellant in Docket No. SC 19097 and the appellee in Docket No. SC 19098 (state).
James Streeto, assistant public defender, for the appellee in Docket No. SC 19097 and the appellant in Docket No. SC 19098 (defendant).
ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD, ESPINOSA and ROBINSON, Js.
The state and the defendant, Shelvonn Jones, appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–60 (a)(2). See State v. Jones, 139 Conn.App. 469, 470, 487, 56 A.3d 724 (2012). The state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the defendant was denied his right to a fair trial due to certain alleged improprieties that the senior assistant state's attorney (prosecutor) committed during his cross-examination of the defendant and in closing argument. The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court properly had denied his motion to suppress evidence of the knife that was used in the commission of the assault. The defendant also raises a claim that the Appellate Court did not address, namely, that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the initial aggressor exception to self-defense. Because we agree with the state's claim and reject the defendant's claims, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following evidence was adduced by the state at trial. On May 20, 2009, the fifty-three year old victim, George Harris, who resided on New Street in the city of Danbury with his sister and niece, arrived home from work and saw the thirty-two year old defendant standing in his driveway, arguing with Harris' sister, Mary Ann Harrison, and Larry Johnson, a private security guard employed by Harrison. Johnson told the defendant to leave the property, but the defendant would not do so. Harris turned to his niece and asked whether the defendant was the man she previously had told to stay off their property, and she responded in the affirmative. Harris then reiterated Johnson's directive that the defendant leave the property immediately. As the defendant was leaving, he turned to Harris and stated, "I'll get you."
On June 9, 2009, at approximately 6 p.m., Harris was walking home from work on Kennedy Avenue in Danbury when the defendant approached him in front of the bus station, displayed a knife,1 and said, "[w]hat's up, Old School?" Harris was frightened by the defendant's gesture and kept walking.
About one hour after arriving home, Harris decided to go for a bike ride. While riding down Beaver Street in Danbury, he saw a man walking toward him. As the man got closer, Harris realized that it was the defendant. Harris was still upset about their earlier encounter and stopped his bicycle to ask the defendant, "what the problem was." As Harris approached him, however, the defendant began swinging the knife at him "like a wild man."
Harris tried to run away, but the defendant pursued him and slashed his back. Harris jumped back on his bicycle, but, instead of heading home, which would have required Harris to pedal uphill with his back exposed to the defendant, he rode the bicycle downhill into the defendant, knocking him to the ground. He then jumped off of the bicycle and was able to subdue the defendant by pulling the defendant's sweatshirt over his arms and head. By this time, traffic in the street had backed up, and a number of drivers were blowing their horns and using their cell phones to call the police. Harris, who never had previously been in any trouble with the law, feared being arrested, so he released the defendant and ran home.
Officers Michael Reo and David Williams of the Danbury Police Department, who were the first officers to arrive on the scene, found the defendant standing in the roadway, visibly intoxicated. The defendant informed them that he had been in the neighborhood looking for some marijuana when a man approached him on a bicycle and asked if he could change a $50 bill. The defendant told the police that he handed the man two $20 bills but then was unable to find any smaller bills, so he asked the man to return the two $20 bills. The man refused, and the two men tussled until they heard the sound of police sirens, at which point the man ran off with the defendant's money. After relating his story, the defendant asked the officers if they would drive him home. Reo agreed to give the defendant a ride because he considered the defendant to be the victim of a crime and because the defendant was intoxicated.
Meanwhile, when Harris arrived home, he realized that he had sustained serious cuts to his chest and back. After consulting with his sister, Harris decided to call the police. The responding officer summoned paramedics to transport Harris to the hospital, where he received eighteen stitches in his chest and several in his back. The responding officer also broadcast the defendant's name over the police radio system, identifying him as Harris' assailant. When Reo heard the broadcast, he returned to the defendant's residence and placed him under arrest.
Officer Matthew Georgoulis of the Danbury Police Department assisted in arresting the defendant. According to Georgoulis, before placing the defendant into the back of his vehicle, Georgoulis performed a routine pat down of the defendant for weapons but did not have him empty his pockets. Later, while leading the defendant into the police station, Georgoulis noticed the defendant glance back at the vehicle, which struck Georgoulis as suspicious. Georgoulis further stated that he subsequently searched the backseat of his vehicle and discovered a small plastic baggie containing marijuana under the seat. Georgoulis testified that the baggie had not been there when he inspected the vehicle prior to his shift, and no one had ridden in the backseat before the defendant had done so.
The defendant was charged with attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–59 (a)(1) and 53a–49 (a)(2), assault in the second degree in violation of § 53a–60 (a)(2), and possession of marijuana in violation of General Statutes § 21a–279 (c). At trial, the defendant testified in his own defense and provided the following account of his encounters with Harris. On the night in question, approximately one hour before the altercation, the defendant was standing on Spring Street in Danbury when Harris approached him and asked if he had any crack cocaine for sale. The defendant told Harris that he was not a drug dealer and "to get the 'F' out of here," which, according to the defendant, angered Harris. The defendant testified that he had never laid eyes on Harris before that moment but previously had "bumped heads" with members of Harris' family and was acquainted with Johnson, the private security guard who worked for Harris' sister. The defendant also testified that he did not display a knife during his initial encounter with Harris.
Approximately one hour later, the defendant was walking up Beaver Street in an extremely intoxicated state when he saw Harris coming toward him on a bicycle. According to the defendant, Harris stopped and commented about "the situation" between them earlier that evening, to which the defendant replied, "I apologize man, I want no problems...." The defendant testified that Harris then asked him if he had change for a $50 bill because he needed it to buy some crack cocaine. The defendant stated that he handed Harris two $20 bills and, while searching his pockets for additional change, saw Harris place the two $20 bills in his pocket. A tussle ensued, and Harris threw his bicycle at the defendant, which caused the defendant to fall to the ground. When the defendant stood up, he pulled a knife out of his pocket and told Harris, "listen, I don't want no problems, just leave me alone, you got the money, go about your business." The defendant stated that it was never his intention to harm Harris with the knife, only to scare him away, and that he had no idea how Harris received the cuts to his chest and back. The defendant surmised that Harris might have sustained the wounds
when the two men were scuffling on the ground. According to the defendant, shortly after the fight started, drivers began to blow their horns. When the defendant turned to look at them, Harris rushed toward him, knocked him to the ground and subdued him by pulling his sweatshirt over his head. Throughout the struggle, the defendant held tightly to the knife so that Harris could not take it away and use it against him, which he believed Harris was trying to do. The defendant denied ever telling the police that he was in the area to buy marijuana. The defendant also denied ever being on Kennedy Avenue or anywhere near the bus station on the evening in question, as Harris had testified.
After the defense rested its case, Harris was recalled by the state as a rebuttal witness and stated that, contrary to the defendant's assertions, he did not seek to purchase drugs from the defendant on the night in question. Harris also explained that he had not taken any illegal drugs since graduating from high school, explaining that his former employer of thirty years, Kimberly–Clark Corporation, had a mandatory drug testing policy. The state also called Harrison and Johnson as rebuttal witnesses. Both of them testified, contrary to the defendant's testimony that he had never seen Harris before the night of the altercation, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salters v. Comm'r of Corr.
...because a challenge to the validity of a jury instruction presents a question of law, we exercise plenary review." State v. Jones , 320 Conn. 22, 53, 128 A.3d 431 (2015)."It has become axiomatic, through decisional law, that it is improper for a court to refer in its instruction to the enti......
-
State v. Weatherspoon
...determines whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones , 320 Conn. 22, 34–35, 128 A.3d 431 (2015). "[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived [him] of his constitutio......
-
State v. A. M., SC 19497
...addresses that impropriety, we have held that the court's general instruction cures the impropriety. See, e.g., State v. Jones, 320 Conn. 22, 38–39, 128 A.3d 431 (2015) ; State v. Luster , 279 Conn. 414, 446, 902 A.2d 636 (2006) ; State v. Warholic , 278 Conn. 354, 402, 897 A.2d 569 (2006) ......
-
State v. Rios, AC 36987
...prosecutorial improprieties that ultimately was deemed to entitle the defendant to a new trial." (Emphasis added.) State v. Jones , 320 Conn. 22, 43–44, 128 A.3d 431 (2015). For several reasons, we conclude that the defendant was not harmed by the court's ruling that permitted the state to ......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...610 A.2d 1162 (1992). [78] Anderson, 319 Conn. at 295-96. [79] Id. at 308. [80] Anderson, 319 Conn. at 360 (Palmer, J., dissenting). [81] 320 Conn. 22, 128 A.3d 431 (2015). [82] Id. at 62-63. [83] Id. at 67. [84] 318 Conn. 699, 122 A.3d 608 (2015). [85] State v. Grullon, 212 Conn. 195, 207 ......