State v. Oehman

• Decision Date: 01 August 1989
• Docket Number: No. 13195,13195
• Citation: 562 A.2d 493,212 Conn. 325
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Eugene OEHMAN.

Page 493

562 A.2d 493

212 Conn. 325

STATE of Connecticut v. Eugene OEHMAN.

No. 13195.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 5, 1989.

Decided Aug. 1, 1989.

James W. Bergenn, with whom, on the brief, was Linda L. Yoder, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

Susan C. Marks, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).

Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, CALLAHAN, GLASS and HULL, JJ.

SHEA, Justice.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. ¹ In this appeal he claims that: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to elicit testimony, during cross-examination, of possible bias on the part of a witness for the state; and (2) the conduct of the state's attorney during closing argument deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial. We find no reversible error.

From the evidence presented the jury could reasonably have found the following facts. On July 28, 1986, at approximately 6:39 a.m., the body of the victim, John Lyons, was found lying across the front seat of his automobile, at the intersection of Milton and Grand Streets, in the city of West Haven. An autopsy revealed that the victim's death was caused by five gunshot wounds, resulting in injury to the heart, lungs and intestines. Inspection of the victim's automobile, by members of the West Haven police department, revealed that: (1) the windshield wipers were in operation and the dashboard lights were on; (2) there were three expended .380 caliber shell casings inside the vehicle; (3) the defendant's fingerprints were located on the outer portion of the vehicle's trunk; and (4) there was a piece of paper above the passenger side sun-visor, on which was written "white V.W. Rabbit, 293," identifying a vehicle registered to the defendant.

Two young girls, delivering newspapers, noticed the victim's automobile and saw a dark haired man, wearing blue clothing, ² standing outside the door on the driver's side. One of the girls saw the man in the blue clothing put his hands on the "top" of the victim's car. The girls heard noises like five firecrackers, heard a person in the victim's automobile scream, and then saw the man in the blue clothing get into a blue car and rapidly drive away. The defendant owned both a blue Datsun and a white Volkswagen.

In January, 1986, the defendant began an extramarital affair with the wife of the victim, seeing her once or twice each week until June, 1986. The defendant informed his own wife of this affair and told her that he wanted to obtain a divorce. In early June, in response to an inquiry by the victim concerning the duration of the affair between the defendant and his wife, the defendant visited the victim at his home. At this meeting the victim told the defendant to stay away from his house and to leave his children alone. In June or July, 1986, the defendant told a co-worker that he was engaged in an affair with the victim's wife and that he was in the process of obtaining a divorce. The defendant asked this co-worker how he should go about purchasing a gun.

On July 24, four days before the victim's death, Jason Chiello, as the result of an advertisement he had placed in the Bargain News, sold a .380 caliber handgun to an individual identifying himself as "George Best." Chiello and two other persons, present at the time of the sale, identified the defendant as the purchaser of this handgun. Chiello provided the police with empty shell casings that had been expended, during an earlier test-firing session from the weapon sold to the defendant. Ballistics tests revealed that these shell casings and those found in the victim's automobile had been ejected from the same weapon.

Also on July 24, Stephen Prindle, a firearms dealer, sold a customer one box of .380 caliber ammunition. In accordance with recordation requirements, he asked the purchaser for his driver's license and, thereafter, entered the identification information in an ammunition sales logbook. The next morning, Prindle discovered that his store had been broken into and that the ammunition sales logbook had been taken. A ladder, found outside the window that had been used to gain entry into the shop, was identified as being similar to one that was discovered missing from the defendant's place of employment. From an array of photographs, Prindle identified the defendant as the purchaser of the ammunition, although he was "not one hundred percent sure" of his identification. Prindle remembered, however, that the purchaser's first name was "Eugene," and that the letters "H," "O," and "E" were at the beginning of the last name.

July 29, the day after the victim's death, the defendant was interviewed at the West Haven police station. The defendant told police officers that: he had never been to the victim's house; he did not know if the victim's wife had been engaged in an extramarital affair; he had never had any contact with the victim; and he did not know the victim's wife other than as a result of their being co-workers. The defendant testified on his own behalf at trial and admitted, during cross-examination, that he had lied when making those statements to the police.

I

The defendant first claims that by preventing him from eliciting, during cross-examination, evidence of possible bias on the part of a witness for the state, the trial court impermissibly restricted his constitutionally guaranteed right of confrontation. ³

During cross-examination by the defendant, Prindle testified that, in addition to himself, one person worked at his firearms store as a paid employee. Defense counsel then asked whether Prindle had "any other persons who might help [him] out who [weren't] paid." The state objected to this question on the basis of relevance, whereupon counsel for the defendant stated that he was attempting to show bias on the part of Prindle. During an offer of proof, conducted outside the presence of the jury, Prindle testified that a member of the West Haven police department occasionally helped him in his store. Prindle also stated that he had conducted business with "perhaps two or three" members of the West Haven police department on a regular basis, and with "quite a few" members of the same department "[o]ver a period of time." After the defendant had elicited the names of several such customers, the state again objected to the introduction of this line of testimony, claiming that it was irrelevant and that no connection had been shown between the officers named and the investigation into the victim's death. Defense counsel argued that "part of [Prindle's bias] might be the fact that he does business with the West Haven Police Department, be it that they be actually involved in this investigation here or not." The trial court sustained the state's objection and noted the defendant's exception.

"Cross-examination to elicit facts tending to show motive, interest, bias and prejudice is a matter of right and may not be unduly restricted." State v. Wilson, 188 Conn. 715, 720, 453 A.2d 765 (1982). "[A] major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation rule is to give a defendant charged with crime an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him." Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406-407, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069-1070, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1076, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). It has been well "recognized that the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination." Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); State v. George, 194 Conn. 361, 481 A.2d 1068 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1191, 105 S.Ct. 963, 83 L.Ed.2d 968 (1985). "To comport with the constitutional standards embodied in the confrontation clause the defendant in exercising his right of cross-examination must be allowed to 'expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.' " State v. Wilson, supra, quoting Davis v. Alaska, supra, 415 U.S. at 318, 94 S.Ct. at 1111. "Although the scope of cross-examination rests generally within the discretion of the trial court, the preclusion of all inquiry upon a particular subject matter tending to show bias is erroneous." State v. James, 211 Conn. 555, 573, 560 A.2d 426 (1989).

Despite the trial court's preclusion of all inquiry on the subject, the state argues that, since there was no connection shown, between the officers named by Prindle and the investigation of this case, the evidence offered was irrelevant to the existence of possible bias on the part of Prindle. We do not agree that such a connection is a prerequisite to the introduction of evidence from which jurors might infer that a witness for the state is either biased in favor of police officers in general, or, in particular, biased in favor of members of the police department whose investigation resulted in the defendant being charged with a criminal offense. "Partiality, or any acts, relationships or motives reasonably likely to produce it, may be proved to impeach credibility." C. McCormick, Evidence (3d Ed.) § 40, p. 85; see C. Tait & J. LaPlante, Connecticut Evidence § 7.20.1; cf. State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377, 382, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Fritz, 204 Conn. 156, 162, 527 A.2d 1157 (1987) (when important testimony from police officers is anticipated, such that a juror might reasonably be more, or less, inclined to credit their testimony, questions concerning whether a juror would have such an inclination are proper during voir dire).

We find error in the trial court's ruling barring cross-examination of Prindle concerning his business dealings with various members of the West Haven police department. The defendant's attempt to show that Prindle was biased in favor of the police...