State v. Marra

• Decision Date: 12 March 1985
• Citation: 489 A.2d 350,195 Conn. 421
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Thomas MARRA, Jr.

Page 350

489 A.2d 350

195 Conn. 421

STATE of Connecticut v. Thomas MARRA, Jr.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Dec. 11, 1984.

Decided March 12, 1985.

John R. Gulash, Jr., Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Emanuel, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).

Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Frank S. Maco, Asst. State's Atty., for the appellee (State).

Before PETERS, C.J., and PARSKEY, SHEA, DANNEHY and HENNESSY, JJ.

PARSKEY, Associate Justice.

The defendant, Thomas Marra, Jr., was charged by an amended information with one count of first degree larceny in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119(2) and 53a-122(a)(2), ¹ one count of second degree larceny in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119(8) and 53a-123(a)(1), ² and one count of second degree forgery in violation of General Statutes § 53a-139(a)(2). ³ The three counts related to the alleged sale by the defendant of a stolen automobile. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on all three counts and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for an effective term of not less than five nor more than ten years and was fined $4000. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction on several grounds, claiming that the trial court erred in: refusing to grant appropriate relief from the allegedly prejudicial effects of publicity; denying his request for a continuance; restricting his cross-examination of a witness for the state; and charging the jury. We find no error.

The jury might reasonably have found the following facts: On March 20, 1981, a black male identifying himself as Stuart Murray leased a 1980 Buick Century, bearing Connecticut registration plate TF 8789, from Budget Rent-a-Car Company in Bridgeport. On March 24, 1981, when the car had not been returned as provided in the rental agreement, the rental company reported to the Bridgeport police that it had been stolen.

In April, 1981, the defendant, an operator of a Bridgeport garage, agreed to sell the 1980 Buick to an Iranian student named Samad Aghamohammadi for $4500. The defendant presented Aghamohammadi with an auto registration form, dated April 8, 1981, for a 1980 Buick Century, marker plate number WC 5414. The form listed "Robert Hicks" as the seller of the vehicle. At the time Aghamohammadi took possession of the car, it bore the registration plate WC 5414.

On June 23, 1981, Aghamohammadi visited the Bridgeport office of the motor vehicle department in an effort to obtain title to the car. He tendered the registration form to a department employee who determined that the document was not a valid registration. Department records revealed that the 1980 Buick had been reported stolen, and that marker plate number WC 5414 was assigned to a 1975 Fiat which had been towed to the defendant's garage in an unrelated incident on April 8, 1981. Consequently, the Bridgeport police recovered the Buick at the motor vehicle department on June 23 and brought Aghamohammadi to the police station where he gave a statement identifying the defendant as the seller. At that point, Aghamohammadi had paid approximately $3500 of the $4500 purchase price to the defendant.

After the Buick was seized by the police, Aghamohammadi and the defendant had several telephone conversations, three of which Aghamohammadi taped. During the first two taped conversations, the defendant pressured Aghamohammadi for the remaining $1000 owed on the purchase price. In the third conversation, the defendant insisted that he had not sold the car to Aghamohammadi. He contended that the actual sellers were two black males, one of whom was the Robert Hicks whose name appeared on the registration form, and both of whom were present when Aghamohammadi agreed to buy the car and when the defendant presented him with the registration and the keys.

When Aghamohammadi informed the defendant that he had a tape of conversations in which the defendant requested payment, the defendant told him not to give the tape to the police and promised to repay him. The defendant gave Aghamohammadi a check for $3500, but payment on the check was refused, apparently for lack of sufficient funds.

I

The defendant first claims that he was deprived of his constitutional rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury and to due process of law, as guaranteed by the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, sections 8 and 9 of the Connecticut constitution. His claim rests on the allegedly prejudicial effects of pretrial and on-trial publicity, from which he asserts the trial court failed to grant appropriate relief. After careful review of the record in this case, we conclude that the defendant did receive a fair trial.

The publicity at issue did not concern the offenses for which the defendant was on trial in this case. Rather, it stemmed from two totally unrelated incidents which took place between the time of the defendant's arrest in July, 1981, and his trial in late October and early November of that year. Most of the publicity concerned a blundered "sting" operation conducted by the F.B.I. and aimed at the Bridgeport superintendent of police. The defendant was used as the "bait" in an attempt to bribe the city official, but the plan backfired when the superintendent declined the defendant's offer of money and arrested him for bribery. Some news coverage was also given to the trial of a third party for insurance fraud. Defense counsel in that trial sought to mitigate his client's actions by implicating the defendant.

The sting incident attracted local and national media attention when it occurred in mid-August, 1981. Local publicity continued, however, and intensified in October in connection with the hotly contested Bridgeport mayoral election, held on November 3, 1981. The Republican challenger to the incumbent mayor had previously provided some legal assistance to the defendant, and the defendant had contributed to this candidate's campaign. This connection was exploited in political advertisements on the radio and in the press, and was reported in news coverage of the campaign. Two weeks before the election, a car belonging to the defendant's wife was firebombed while parked in front of Republican election campaign headquarters in Bridgeport, creating additional coverage by the local media. Finally, there was press coverage of federal court proceedings relating to bribery charges filed against the defendant by the state, which arose out of the F.B.I. sting attempt. Only one venireman had read an article about the charges in the instant case, but he was not selected to be a member of the jury and the defendant does not claim any prejudice from publicity concerning these offenses.

Although the remedy most commonly sought to reduce the adverse effects of pretrial publicity is a motion for a change of venue; see State v. Vitale, 190 Conn. 219, 227, 460 A.2d 961 (1983); State v. Piskorski, 177 Conn. 677, 682, 419 A.2d 866, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935, 100 S.Ct. 283, 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979); State v. Hart, 169 Conn. 428, 432, 363 A.2d 80 (1975); the defendant in this case made no such request. In fact, the first reference to publicity came not from the defendant but from the trial judge in his opening remarks to the first panel of prospective jurors. On the second day of jury selection, before any voir dire questioning by counsel had begun, the defendant made an oral motion for an "extension of time" or "any other remedy" necessary to protect his right to a fair trial. In support of his motion, the defendant was permitted to introduce into evidence an envelope containing numerous newspaper and magazine articles that mentioned the defendant. The court acknowledged an awareness of the publicity, which it termed "extensive," but denied the defendant's motion for a continuance. The court did not rule out the possibility of relief, however, and explicitly stated: "Right now, not having voir dired any jurors, we have no indication as to the impact of these articles. I intend to get into the subject to be sure that a fair and impartial juror [sic] is selected and I will also allow counsel to develop it. Should the voir diring of the panel begin to establish that the publicity is going to effect [sic] his right to a fair and impartial trial, the Court will certainly review this motion again."

At the beginning of court the following day, the defendant renewed his motion for "an extension of time or other appropriate remedy" and offered additional articles which were included in the file admitted the previous day. Again, the court denied the motion and allowed voir dire to continue. The court questioned prospective jurors individually and collectively, and permitted extensive voir dire examination by counsel. Individual questioning of twenty-eight venirepersons took place over the course of five days. Although some members of the venire panel were excused for cause due to extensive knowledge of the defendant or an admitted inability to try him impartially, others had never heard or read anything about him. Many who had heard of the defendant through media reports had only a vague and general knowledge of his involvement in the F.B.I. sting operation. As previously mentioned, only one venireman had read anything about the charges to be tried.

When requesting relief, such as a change of venue or a continuance, from the allegedly prejudicial effects of publicity, "the defendant has the burden of showing that he could not receive a fair and impartial trial. State v. Rogers, 143 Conn. 167, 172, 120 A.2d 409, cert. denied, 351 U.S. 952, 76 S.Ct. 850, 100 L.Ed. 1476 [1956]; State v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 470, 130 A. 899 [1925]. More specifically, with regard to publicity in the news media, the defendant must show more than the mere fact of publicity. He must demonstrate that it was prejudicial and prevented him from being accorded a fair and impartial trial. ...