State v. Leniart
Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
Docket Number | AC 36358 |
Citation | 198 Conn.App. 591,233 A.3d 1183 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. George Michael LENIART |
Lauren M. Weisfeld, chief of legal services, for the appellant (defendant).
Stephen M. Carney, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Michael L. Regan, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Prescott, Devlin and Sheldon, Js.
This case returns to this court on remand from our Supreme Court following its reversal of our judgment reversing the judgment of conviction of the defendant, George Michael Leniart, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), and three counts of capital felony in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53a-54b (5), (7) and (9), Public Acts 1995, No. 95-16, § 4.1 The sole remaining claim before us is whether the trial court's improper exclusion of certain evidence at trial violated the defendant's rights under the United States constitution. We conclude that the defendant's constitutional rights were not violated, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.
3 (Footnotes in original.) State v. Leniart , 333 Conn. 88, 93–95, 215 A.3d 1104 (2019).
"Prior to trial, the state filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude all testimony or evidence pertaining to the polygraph examination of any witnesses. Defense counsel opposed the motion, arguing that he intended to offer, among other things, a ninety minute videotape showing the standard pretest interview that the polygrapher, state police Trooper Tim Madden, had conducted with Allain prior to performing Allain's polygraph test in 2004. Defense counsel stated that he would seek to offer the videotape on the ground that it showed Madden giving Allain numerous assurances that Allain would receive favorable treatment if he cooperated with the police, which, defense counsel argued, ‘raises questions ... about whether this young man is coming into this courtroom with the intention to do anything other than save himself.’
Id., at 124–25, 215 A.3d 1104.
(Footnote omitted.) State v. Leniart , supra, 333 Conn. at 96, 215 A.3d 1104.
Our Supreme Court affirmed this court's rejection of the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Id., at 93, 215 A.3d 1104. The Supreme Court also affirmed this court's conclusion that the trial court improperly excluded the polygraph pretest interview videotape. Id. The Supreme Court concluded, however, that "any error in the exclusion of the video was harmless"; id., at 124, 215 A.3d 1104 ; and, thus, reversed the judgment of this court,4 and remanded this case for determination of the final issue of whether the exclusion of the videotape violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Id., at 152 and n.35, 215 A.3d 1104.
In assessing the evidentiary issue raised by the exclusion of the videotape and its subsequent determination that the exclusion was harmless, the Supreme Court set forth the following relevant description and analysis of its content, and of Allain's testimony at trial. "Madden's pretest interview of Allain lasted for approximately ninety minutes. For the first thirteen minutes or so, Madden and Allain discussed Allain's reasons for submitting to the polygraph. Specifically, a question arose as to whether Allain was taking the test voluntarily, because he believed that assisting the state was the right thing to do or, rather, because he was facing a potential five year sentence for having violated his probation through a failed drug test and had been led to believe that the state might not pursue a conviction if he cooperated in this matter. Allain initially indicated that he had consented to the polygraph primarily to avoid the conviction for violating his probation. Madden promptly explained, in no uncertain terms, that he could not perform the polygraph on those terms. Thus, before proceeding, Madden obtained from Allain a statement that he was participating freely.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cusson
...he adequately has been permitted to present the defense by different means." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Leniart , 198 Conn. App. 591, 603–604, 233 A.3d 1183, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 971, 240 A.3d 1055 (2020) ; see also State v. Porfil , 191 Conn. App. 494, 522, 215 A.3d 16......
-
Stubbs v. ICare Mgmt., LLC
... ... 530 233 A.3d 1183 State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 617, 222 A.3d 105 (2019). Accordingly, we decline to review this claim. The judgment is reversed as to counts ... ...
-
State v. Leniart
...assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 198 Conn. App. 591, 233 A.3d 1183 (2020), is ...