State v. Marsala, 14952
Decision Date | 12 November 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 14952,14952 |
Citation | 684 A.2d 1199,43 Conn.App. 527 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Michael MARSALA. |
Susan Brown, Supervisory Assistant Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Christopher T. Godialis, Deputy Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Mary M. Galvin, State's Attorney, and Gerard F. Esposito, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellee (state).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL and FREDERICK A. FREEDMAN, JJ.
The defendant, Michael Marsala, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of twenty-five 1 counts of harassment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183 (a)(3). 2 The trial court sentenced the defendant to twelve consecutive three month sentences on the first twelve counts and entered an unconditional discharge as to the remaining thirteen counts for a total effective sentence of thirty-six months consecutive to a sentence the defendant was already serving. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence, (2) that the trial court should not have denied his motion for severance, (3) that General Statutes § 53a-183 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and (4) that the jury was improperly instructed on the need for unanimity as to the specific actus reus. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the facts that follow. Between April 4 and June 26, 1994, the defendant made at least twenty-five telephone calls to the victim. Many of the calls were made during early morning hours. On April 4, there were four calls made in the thirty-five minutes between 6:45 a.m. and 7:20 a.m. On June 17 and June 19, the defendant made four and five calls, respectively, to the victim. Most of the telephone calls concerned the victim's daughter, Tamra. The contents of the calls varied. One of the calls, made at 5 a.m., wished Tamra a happy birthday, while another claimed that During several of the calls, the victim asked the caller to stop calling. The victim additionally threatened to call the police. On the advice of her attorney, the victim allowed her answering machine to pick up and record most of the later calls.
The victim positively identified the defendant as the caller in each of the telephone calls about which she testified. The victim testified that she had met the defendant in May, 1992, while she was visiting her daughter in a hospital. The victim had spoken with the defendant for ten or fifteen minutes on that occasion. The victim stated that she spoke to the defendant between ten and twelve times during the two years between meeting him and when the telephone calls started. She indicated that she was familiar with his voice from these conversations. Additionally, two months before the trial, the victim listened in person to the defendant's live voice for about seven minutes and identified it as the voice she heard on the phone.
The defendant's insufficiency of evidence claim has two prongs. The first is that there was insufficient evidence to identify him as the caller, and the second, that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the caller's intent was "to harass, annoy or alarm."
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. DeJesus, 236 Conn. 189, 195, 672 A.2d 488 (1996).
The defendant claims that his identity as the caller has not been established because the victim's testimony was the only evidence produced to show the identity of the caller. The issue of the caller's identity is one of fact properly to be resolved by the jury. State v. Jones, 234 Conn. 324, 333, 662 A.2d 1199 (1995). The victim testified that she positively identified the defendant as the caller on each call; she recognized the caller's voice as that of the defendant from meeting him two years earlier and from prior telephone conversations with him; and she had been able to identify the defendant as the caller in a "voice-up." The victim additionally testified that the content of most of the calls concerned her daughter, who knew the defendant, and that when she went to visit her daughter on one of the days he had telephoned, the defendant was at her daughter's address, as he had said he would be. An attorney, hired by the victim to try to stop the defendant from calling, testified that the defendant had called him in response to the letter the attorney had sent to him. The jury reasonably could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, from the cumulative effect of both the circumstantial and direct evidence, that it was the defendant who repeatedly had made telephone calls to the victim.
The second prong of the defendant's insufficiency of evidence claim is closely related to the defendant's severance claim. Because our reasoning as to severance also controls the insufficiency of evidence claim, we will consider them together in the following section.
The defendant claims that the trial court should have granted his motion to sever the twenty-five counts of harassment. The defendant asserts that the joinder of the claims is unduly prejudicial because the jury is likely to aggregate the evidence from each count of harassment, thereby consolidating all the evidence and convicting the defendant on the totality of the evidence instead of keeping the evidence separate and distinct. In addition, the defendant argues that severance should have been granted because he wanted to testify as to counts one through eleven but not as to the rest of the counts. Finally, the defendant argues that the counts should have been severed because a jury considering multiple charges against the defendant may consider him a "bad person" who must have done something wrong and not deliberate over the different counts against him. The defendant further asserts that the jury had insufficient evidence to convict him on each individual count of harassment.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78, 94-95, 554 A.2d 686, cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S.Ct. 3230, 106 L.Ed.2d 579 (1989).
"Because of its prejudicial impact, evidence of prior acts of misconduct is inadmissible merely to show a defendant's bad character or tendency to commit criminal acts...." (Citations omitted.) State v. Pollitt, 205 Conn. 61, 69, 530 A.2d 155 (1987). (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714, 722, 529 A.2d 1260 (1987).
State v. Pollitt, supra, 205 Conn. at 68, 530 A.2d 155; State v. King, 35 Conn.App. 781, 791, 647 A.2d 25 (1994), aff'd, 235 Conn. 402, 665 A.2d 897 (1995).
We agree with the trial court that joinder of the twenty-five claims was proper because evidence relating to each count could have been used in a trial of each of the other counts to prove the identity of the defendant, the intent of the defendant, and to demonstrate a common scheme. See State v. King, supra, 35 Conn.App. at 791, 647 A.2d 25. State v. King, supra, at 791, 647 A.2d 25.
In this case, a single victim received more than twenty telephone calls she identified as having been made by the same man. Although the contents of the calls were not identical, the victim was able to identify the defendant as the caller each time. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Reed
...141 (2013). "There is no conceptual distinction among acts intended 'to harass,' 'to annoy,' and 'to alarm' ...." State v. Marsala , 43 Conn.App. 527, 540, 684 A.2d 1199 (1996), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 957, 688 A.2d 329 (1997). Our Supreme Court has summarized the nearly identical intent la......
-
State v. Gardner
...nature of the defendant's intent does not implicate any lack of unanimity regarding the defendant's conduct.' State v. Marsala, 43 Conn.App. 527, 539, 684 A.2d 1199 (1996), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 957, 688 A.2d 329 (1997)." (Brackets sic.) Luster, 48 Conn.App. at 878-879, 713 A.2d 277. See ......
-
State v. Radzvilowicz
...934 F.2d 1114, 1120 (10th Cir.1991), quoting United States v. Valentine, 706 F.2d 282, 291 (10th Cir.1983); see State v. Marsala, 43 Conn.App. 527, 535-36, 684 A.2d 1199 (1996), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 957, 688 A.2d 329 (1997).22 The defendant's trial did not last "four weeks" as his brief ......
-
State v. Moulton, (AC 29617) (Conn. App. 4/13/2010)
...A.2d 645 (1997). There is no conceptual distinction among acts intended "to harass," "to annoy" and "to alarm." State v. Marsala, 43 Conn. App. 527, 540, 684 A.2d 1199 (1996), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 957, 688 A.2d 329 "Evidence of the language used in an alleged violation of the harassment ......
-
A Servey of Criminal Law Opinion
...do something similar to the firm. [565] 310 Conn. 337, 78 A.3d 55 (2013). [566] Reed, 176 Conn. App. at 549 (quoting State v. Marsala, 43 Conn.App. 527. 537, 684 A.2d 1199 (1996), cert, denied, 239 Conn. 957, 688 A.2d 329 (1997)). [567] Id. at 557-59. [568] 169 Conn. App. 286, 150 A.3d 720 ......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...do something similar to the firm. [565] 310 Conn. 337, 78 A.3d 55 (2013). [566] Reed, 176 Conn.App. at 549 (quoting State v. Marsala, 43 Conn.App. 527, 537, 684 A.2d 1199 (1996), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 957, 688 A.2d 329 (1997)). [567] Id. at 557-59. [568] 169 Conn.App. 286, 150 A.3d 720 (2......