State v. Morlo M.

Decision Date10 August 2021
Docket NumberAC 41474
Citation206 Conn.App. 660,261 A.3d 68
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. MORLO M.
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals

Judie Marshall, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was David J. Reich, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Linda F. Currie-Zeffiro, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, and Colleen Zingaro, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Bright, C.J., and Alvord and Norcott, Js.

ALVORD, J.

The defendant, Morlo M., appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of one count of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (3), five counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), one count of unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a), and one count of tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of (1) assault in the first degree, (2) risk of injury to a child (3) and unlawful restraint in the first degree, and that (4) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his prior misconduct.2 We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. In the early morning hours of November 28, 2016, the victim, who is the mother of the defendant's four minor children, called the defendant from a gas station to ask that he pick her up and drive her back to the house where they both resided. The victim had been out drinking with someone other than the defendant. Soon after the victim and the defendant arrived at the house, the defendant seized the victim by her hair, dragged her down to the basement of the house, and proceeded to beat her. The defendant kicked, punched, and choked the victim. During this time, the victim's seven children were asleep on upper floors of the house3 and, thus, did not witness the victim being dragged down into the basement by the defendant. The victim could not leave the basement until the defendant ceased beating her. Subsequently, in the morning of November 28, the victim and the defendant emerged from the basement and sat on their living room couch. The victim remained on the couch throughout the day-time hours of November 28 because of the injuries she sustained from the defendant's beating of her. While the victim remained on the couch, her older children were at school, and her sixteen year old nephew assisted her by caring for her young children. Following the older children's return from school, all of the children were fed and went upstairs.

At nighttime on November 28, 2016, the defendant commanded the victim to return down into the basement. The victim obeyed the defendant's command because she was already hurt and did not want to defy him. The children were upstairs and in their beds when the victim and the defendant went down into the basement. Once they were in the basement, the victim again was beaten by the defendant. The defendant hit and choked the victim, and ripped out parts of her hair.

In the early morning of November 29, 2016, the victim emerged from the basement after a second night of being beaten. The victim's children were still asleep when the victim came up from the basement. The victim spent that day as she spent the day before, resting on the couch. Although she did not know the extent of her injuries, the victim was in pain and thought that she might have broken ribs. Following the return of the older children from school, all of the children were fed and then went upstairs. The victim again was beaten on November 29 for a third night in a row. On one of the three nights during which she was beaten, the victim lost consciousness. Following the beatings, the victim's side and head in particular were hurting her.

When the defendant left the house on the third day, the victim contacted a friend, F, who picked up the victim, her seven children, and her nephew, and took them all to a hotel. The victim left the house in a rush, fearing that if she remained there any longer, she would die. The victim's injuries were visible and seen by her children. While at the hotel, the victim, a veteran of the armed forces, called her peer counselor at the United States Veterans Administration Hospital. The victim informed her counselor that she was in pain, had a limited amount of money, and needed to travel to her foster mother in Georgia. The victim's counselor first encouraged the victim to seek treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in West Haven (medical center). On December 2, 2016, after encouragement from her counselor and because she remained in pain, wanted to know the extent of her injuries, and desired treatment, the victim went to the medical center with her children and nephew. At the medical center, the victim had her injuries photographed, vitals measured, and body imaged. A blood test also was performed. Staff at the medical center observed that the defendant had bruising on her scalp, face, chest, back, legs, arms, and left side. Some of the bruises were more recent than others. The victim also had a subconjunctival hemorrhage

in her left eye, parts of her hair torn out, and tenderness in sections of her body, particularly her left chest and left abdomen.

The victim told medical center staff that over the last few days she had been kicked, punched, dragged by her hair, choked, and that she lost consciousness. Initially, the victim did not disclose who caused her injuries to medical center staff. Eventually, however, the victim did tell the staff that the defendant caused her injuries. The police and the Department of Children and Families (department) were summoned to the medical center and, upon their arrival, took sworn, written statements from the victim. Officer Jonathan Simmons, of the Bridgeport Police Department, who took the victim's statement at the medical center, observed the victim as having parts of her hair missing, a swollen face, and a bloodshot eye.

The victim was evaluated by Julia Chen, a resident at the medical center who specialized in vascular and general surgery. Imaging revealed that one of the victim's ribs on her left side was fractured and that there was indeterminate fluid in her pelvic region. On the basis of the location of the victim's bruising and the fluid in her pelvic region, Chen and other staff at the medical center were concerned that the victim might have had an injury to her spleen. There also was concern that the victim might be bleeding internally. It was recommended to the victim that she be evaluated at Yale-New Haven Hospital (hospital) because the hospital had a trauma center and the medical center did not. Although Chen was not concerned that the victim faced an immediate risk of death, she recommended further evaluation because she was concerned that the victim had very serious internal injuries. Moreover, although Chen could not conclusively determine that the victim's spleen was injured, her concern prompted a recommendation that the victim pursue further evaluation because "a splenic hemorrhage

could be very bad."

Contrary to the medical advice given to her, the victim did not seek further evaluation at the hospital and discharged herself from the medical center. The victim did not seek further evaluation at the hospital because she could not take her children with her. Following her discharge from the medical center, the victim received assistance from a battered women's shelter that enabled her, her children, and her nephew to stay at a hotel. On December 5, 2016, they all checked out of the hotel and rode a bus to the home of the victim's foster mother in Georgia.

While in Georgia, F contacted the victim and urged her to speak with the defendant. F told the victim that the defendant wanted to speak with their twin children because it was their birthday. The victim spoke with the defendant several times while she was in Georgia. During one of their conversations, the victim told the defendant that she had made a statement to the police that identified him as the cause of her injuries. The defendant told the victim that she had to return to Connecticut to "fix" her statement so that he would not get into any trouble.

Following this conversation, the defendant drove to Georgia. After arriving at the home of the victim's foster mother in Georgia, the defendant picked up the victim and five children and proceeded to drive back to Connecticut.4 They arrived in Connecticut on December 20, 2016, and stayed at the apartment of the defendant's sister. On December 21, the defendant drove the victim to the police station, where she changed her statement to the police at the defendant's behest. The victim changed her statement to allege that another male was the cause of her injuries. The victim and the defendant then returned to the apartment.

Thereafter, on December 21, 2016, police officers travelled to the apartment. The police officers were met by an adult male and female, who provided no information regarding the whereabouts of the defendant, the victim, or the victim's children. As the police officers were leaving, they observed a child in the living room area of the apartment through a window. At approximately 4:30 p.m. on December 22, the police officers returned to the apartment with a warrant for the defendant's arrest. The victim, who was outside as the police arrived, ran into the apartment, gathered her children, and brought them down into the basement. The police officers located the defendant outside the apartment, in the process of moving a television, and executed the arrest warrant. The police officers then entered the house and found the victim and her children in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 11 Enero 2022
    ...within a trial" when it consisted of only twenty-five pages out of approximately 500 pages of trial transcript); State v. Morlo M. , 206 Conn. App. 660, 693, 261 A.3d 68 (prior misconduct evidence not distracting in amount of time it involved when state elicited victim's testimony regarding......
  • State v. McCarthy
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 18 Enero 2022
    ...belief that, had she tried to escape his confinement, the defendant may have used force against her. See State v. Morlo M. , 206 Conn. App. 660, 688–90, 261 A.3d 68, cert. denied, 339 Conn. 910, 261 A.3d 745 (2021) ; State v. Franko , 142 Conn. App. 451, 461, 64 A.3d 807, cert. denied, 310 ......
  • State v. Marcello E.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 18 Octubre 2022
    ...his intent as to the incident in question." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 488, 72 A.3d 1228 ; accord State v. Morlo M ., 206 Conn. App. 660, 690–91, 261 A.3d 68, cert. denied, 339 Conn. 910, 261 A.3d 745 (2021). These cases reflect an understanding that, in matters of domestic......
  • State v. Goode
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 5 Octubre 2021
    ...what accused is thinking or intending at given moment, state of mind usually proved by circumstantial evidence); State v. Morlo M. , 206 Conn. App. 660, 690, 261 A.3d 68 (2021) (intent almost always proved by circumstantial evidence). The state produced both testimonial and photographic evi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT