State v. Lanier
| Docket Number | SC 20620 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. TRAVIS LANIER |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Argued October 11, 2022
Procedural History
Two part substitute information charging the defendant, in the first part, with the crimes of robbery in the first degree robbery in the second degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and burglary in the second degree, and, in the second part, with being a persistent felony offender, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex, where the first part of the information was tried to the jury before Suarez J.; verdict of guilty of burglary in the second degree thereafter, the defendant was tried to the court on the second part of the information; finding of guilty subsequently, the court, Suarez, J., rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict and the finding, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Bright, C. J., and Moll and Bear, Js., which affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Pamela S. Nagy, supervisory assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were Russell Zentner, senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Michael A. Gailor, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker and Alexander, Js.
In this certified appeal, the defendant, Travis Lanier, challenges the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the defendant's conviction of burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102 (a). The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) the trial court did not violate his constitutional rights to confrontation, to present a defense, and to a fair trial under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of the victim, Alejandro Marrinan.[1]We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On the evening of January 28, 2018, the victim went to the Corner Pocket, a bar in Middletown, where he encountered the defendant, who was there with a small group, including Mason Moniz. The defendant, who was acquainted with the victim, bought him a drink and, at some point, asked if he could borrow some money. The victim gave the defendant $20 and remarked that he had additional money at home that he was saving for his rent. After the bar closed at 1 a.m., the defendant invited the victim and Moniz back to his apartment. When they arrived at the defendant's apartment, Moniz struck the victim several times[2] and accused him of stealing his watch. Moniz testified that, about two weeks prior to the night in question, the victim had been at his apartment and stolen a watch while Moniz' back was turned. Moniz further testified that, when he confronted the victim about the watch, the victim had denied taking it but offered to pay Moniz $300 as compensation for it. The victim testified that he "had no idea what [the defendant and Moniz] were talking about" when they confronted him about the watch. He further testified that the defendant and Moniz had demanded that he take them to his apartment to get money or they were going to hurt him.
While the three men walked to the victim's apartment, the victim secretly dialed 911 on his cell phone in his pocket, hoping that the call would alert the police to his location.[3] When the three men arrived at the victim's apartment, the defendant ordered him to open the door, and the defendant and Moniz forced him inside. Once inside, the defendant demanded that the victim give him his money. The victim had $800 in a bank envelope in his bedroom closet, in denominations of $100 and $50 bills, that he was saving for his rent payment. After the victim removed the envelope from the closet, the defendant grabbed it, removed a portion of the money, and told the victim that he would hurt him if he talked to the police. He then invited the victim back to his apartment to drink some more beer, which the victim declined to do.
After the defendant and Moniz left the apartment, the victim again called 911 and told the operator that two individuals had just robbed him and that these individuals were walking down the street. The victim said that he was afraid for his life because one of them had threatened to shoot him if he talked to the police. He also informed the operator that, before leaving his apartment, the individuals had invited him back to their apartment. After receiving the 911 dispatch, Officer Kyle Pixley of the Middletown Police Department encountered the defendant and Moniz walking down Main Street, a short distance from the victim's apartment. When Pixley ordered them to stop, both men continued walking. After Pixley ordered them to stop several more times, Moniz complied, but the defendant continued to disregard Pixley's orders and walked around the corner from Main Street onto Rapallo Avenue. A second officer arrived and ordered the defendant to comply several times, after which the defendant walked back toward Main Street. While the second officer secured the defendant and Moniz, Pixley walked over to Rapallo Avenue to see whether the defendant had disposed of something when he had walked around the corner. Pixley discovered two $100 bills on the sidewalk.[4] The officers also found two $50 bills on Moniz.
Middletown police officers interviewed the victim at his apartment and then took him in a police cruiser to the area where the defendant and Moniz had been detained. After the victim identified the defendant and Moniz as the individuals who stole his money, the police took him back to his apartment. He subsequently was transported by ambulance to a hospital after complaining to an officer about a head injury. The hospital medical staff observed blunt trauma to the victim's face and determined that he had a broken nose. At the hospital, the victim conveyed to the emergency department staff that he was concerned that he might have been drugged.
The defendant was arrested and charged in a six count information with committing various crimes.[5] "[I]n count six, the state alleged that the defendant committed burglary in the second degree [in violation of § 53a-102 (a)] by entering or remaining unlawfully in the victim's apartment sometime between 1 and 2:50 a.m. on January 29, 2018, while the victim was present, with the intent to commit a crime therein . . . ." State v. Lanier, 205 Conn.App. 586, 594, 258 A.3d 770 (2021). "Following a jury trial . . . the defendant [was found] guilty of burglary in the second degree as alleged in count six and not guilty of the charges in counts one through five." Id.
The victim was the state's key witness at trial. At the time of the incident, the victim was on probation for a 2017 felony conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (felony DUI conviction). Id., 595. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine, seeking permission to question the victim concerning (1) his 2017 felony DUI conviction, (2) his probation status during the events underlying the defendant's criminal charges, (3) his arrests while on probation and his violation of probation,[6] and (4) the specific conditions of his probation.
In the motion in limine, the defendant argued that the jury reasonably could infer that the victim may "wish to curry favor with the prosecuting authorities" because of his probation status, and, therefore, it was a legitimate area of inquiry for cross-examination. He further argued that the specific conditions of the victim's probation were relevant to the victim's state of mind at the time of the incident and his motive to fabricate the allegations against the defendant. Specifically, the defendant sought to ask the victim "whether ... he knew that one of the conditions of his probation was substance abuse treatment" and that the authorities could find that he violated his probation if they became aware that he had been intoxicated on the night in question. He also sought to ask the victim "whether one of the standard conditions of his probation was not to be arrested." The defendant argued that this question was relevant because, if the victim knew that one of the conditions of his probation was not to have any new arrests, he may have been motivated to fabricate his allegations against the defendant to avoid being accused of "stealing [Moniz'] watch." In addition to establishing any concerns the victim may have had due to his probationary status, the defendant sought to establish that the victim fabricated his allegations to recover the money that the defendant and Moniz took from him as payment for the allegedly stolen watch.
At trial, the prosecutor moved to preclude defense counsel from cross-examining the victim on whether he believed that his consumption of alcohol on the night in question could result in a violation of his probation. The prosecutor also objected, on relevancy grounds, to defense counsel's questioning the victim on whether an arrest would violate the victim's probation.
The trial court allowed defense counsel to question the victim about his prior felony conviction, his current probation status, and his financial concerns and hardships at the time of the incident, but prohibited him from cross-examining the victim about his recent violation of probation, his prior arrests while...
To continue reading
Request your trial