State v. Jones, 8369
| Decision Date | 21 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 8369,8369 |
| Citation | 22 Conn.App. 665,578 A.2d 667 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Wayne JONES. |
Erskine D. McIntosh, Asst. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was William Holden, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Richard F. Jacobson, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., and Stephen Sedensky III, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before SPALLONE, DALY and EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, JJ.
The defendant appeals his conviction, after a trial to the court, of the crime of possessing narcotics with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278(b). He claims that the court's refusal to allow him to cross-examine a state's witness about prior misconduct impermissibly restricted his constitutional right to confrontation. We disagree.
Before trial, the defendant subpoenaed the personnel files of the two Bridgeport police officers who had arrested him for possessing twenty-five packets of what later proved to be cocaine. The court denied a motion to quash the subpoena and ordered the personnel files to be produced and sealed. The defendant then sought access to all information in the files pertaining to disciplinary actions relevant to the issue of credibility.
In an in camera review, the court discovered that one officer's file contained information that in 1974, in violation of a departmental rule, the officer had failed to report that a person in his presence had apparently "injected himself with a substance." The officer admitted this lapse to a superior officer and was subsequently suspended for seven days. The court expressly found that, under the circumstances, this incident was remote, collateral and pertained to conduct that, while violative of a departmental regulation, did not affect the officer's credibility or honesty. Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant could not use this information to cross-examine and impeach the officer.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the officer's prior conduct constituted the fraudulent concealment of a criminal act performed in his presence. The defendant argues that his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him required that he be permitted to question the officer about this misconduct that, according to the defendant, negatively reflected on the officer's credibility and veracity. This claim fails because we do not agree that the officer's prior misconduct, in these circumstances, is relevant evidence.
The confrontation clause guarantees a defendant a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, but it does not guarantee the defense its every wish. State v. Yednock, 14 Conn.App. 333, 339, 541 A.2d 887 (1988). We do not question the right of a criminal defendant fully to cross-examine a police officer who testifies against him and to have available relevant information from police personnel files. See State v. Januszewski, 182 Conn. 142, 170-74, 438 A.2d 679 (1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 922, 101 S.Ct. 3159, 69 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1981). Our courts have never held, however, that irrelevant evidence should be disclosed or admitted. State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505, 523, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).
It is within the discretion of the trial court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cepeda
...U.S. 15, 20, 106 S. Ct. 292, 88 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1985); see State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 478, 625 A.2d 791 (1993); State v. Jones, 22 Conn. App. 665, 667, 578 A.2d 667 (1990). The Beliveau court also said: "The confrontation clause does not, however, suspend the rules of evidence to give th......
-
State v. Carter, 12839
...quotation marks omitted.) United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 558, 108 S.Ct. 838, 841-42, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988); State v. Jones, 22 Conn.App. 665, 667, 578 A.2d 667 (1990). Further, the United States Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity ......
-
State v. Reeves
...U.S. 15, 20, 106 S. Ct. 292, 88 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1985); see State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 478, 625 A.2d 791 (1993); State v. Jones, 22 Conn. App. 665, 667, 578 A.2d 667 (1990). The Beliveau court also stated: "The confrontation clause does not, however, suspend the rules of evidence to give ......
-
Transportation General, Inc. v. Insurance Dept. of State of Conn., 12944
...After hearing the evidence, it is for the trier of fact, not an appellate court, to sift and weigh the evidence. State v. Jones, 22 Conn.App. 665, 668, 578 A.2d 667 (1990). A determination by the trial court that the evidence produced by the party claiming actual bias does not establish suc......