State v. Oscar H.

Decision Date27 April 2021
Docket NumberAC 43622
Citation252 A.3d 842,204 Conn.App. 207
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. OSCAR H.
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals

Naomi T. Fetterman, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Rocco A. Chiarenza, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T. Corradino, state's attorney, John C. Smriga, former state's attorney, and Emily D. Trudeau, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Lavine, Prescott and Suarez, Js.**

PRESCOTT, J.

The defendant, Oscar H., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-54a (a), assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1), and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). The defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly determined that the surviving

assault victim, B, was unavailable to testify at trial and, on the basis of that determination, admitted B's prior deposition testimony into evidence in violation of our rules of evidence and his constitutional rights to confrontation and due process, and (2) his conviction of both attempted murder and assault in the first degree violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because each crime was predicated on the same act and against the same victim, B.1 We disagree with both claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts on the basis of the evidence admitted at trial. The defendant and N began a romantic relationship sometime in 2006 or 2007. In 2010, they had a child together, S. The defendant, N, and S lived together in a small basement apartment in Bridgeport.

In January, 2017, approximately one month before the events at issue, N spoke to her mother, L, about problems in her relationship with the defendant. Specifically, she complained that the defendant had been increasingly acting jealous and was following her. N asked L to speak with the defendant on her behalf. N told her mother, "I can't stand him anymore," and that she wanted to leave him. When L spoke to the defendant soon thereafter, he told L that S had been saying things to him about N that led him to believe that N was cheating on him with another man.

On February 10, 2017, N's friend and coworker, B, who recently had broken up with a boyfriend with whom she had been living, moved into the Bridgeport apartment with N and the defendant. B and N worked together cleaning houses in Fairfield and Westport. B, like N, had been born in Guatemala, and she had come

to the United States in 2013 as an undocumented immigrant.

On February 16, 2017, N, N's sister, the defendant, and B attended a baby shower for one of the defendant's relatives. During the shower, N's sister had a private conversation with the defendant. The defendant told N's sister that N wanted "to split from him" but that "he could not be separated from [N] because [N] was the love of his life."

On February 23, 2017, after they had finished work for the day, N and B picked up S from her school. The three of them then picked up the defendant from his place of work in Norwalk. The defendant told them that he needed to visit one of his sons,2 who was in a hospital in Greenwich. The defendant dropped off N, B, and S at L's house in Stamford while he went to visit with his son. When the defendant picked them up to return to Bridgeport, he had "a bag with beer in it." He drank one beer while he drove back to the Bridgeport apartment. Once at the apartment, the defendant drank three or four more beers, and N and B drank "Micheladas," a mixture of beer and Clamato juice.

Later in the evening, N saw a posting on Facebook indicating that a female friend was at a local club, and N and B discussed joining her. After N obtained "permission" from the defendant to go, N and B left, still dressed in the clothes they had worn to work that day. At least three other female friends were at the club when B and N arrived, and N bought "a bucket of beers," which amounted to one beer for each of the women. The women danced and sang karaoke. While they were at the club, the defendant made at least two video calls to N, asking her to move her phone around so that he could see who was with her at the club. B and N stayed at the

club for between one and one and one-half hours before returning to the apartment at about 1 a.m.

Although the defendant and N seemed to be getting along at first, while B was in the bathroom getting ready for bed, she heard N scream for her help. She came out of the bathroom to find the defendant holding N by her hair with a knife to her neck.3 After cutting N's throat, the defendant attacked B, stabbing her in the lower back. B begged the defendant not to kill her because she had children who needed her support, but the defendant stabbed her in the neck. B held her breath while the defendant kicked her and N to see if they were alive. Convinced that neither was breathing, he went into the bathroom to wash the victims’ blood off himself in the shower.

After showering and changing his clothes, the defendant retrieved S, who was asleep in her bedroom, and fled the apartment, necessarily passing through the bloody crime scene in the living area. When she heard the door of the apartment close, B, who was still alive, dragged herself toward the door so that she could yell for help from the landlords who lived upstairs. The landlords heard B calling out and came downstairs to investigate.4 They observed N's body lying on the floor and called 911.

Officer Phillip Norris arrived on the scene at approximately 2:55 a.m. in response to a dispatch call. He observed N and B lying on the floor, both badly injured. N was not visibly breathing, but B was moving. When

paramedics arrived several minutes later, they determined that N was deceased.5 They transported B to a hospital by ambulance. B told one of the paramedics that she had been "stabbed with a kitchen knife."6

As part of their investigation to locate the defendant, the police learned from N's sister that the defendant had mentioned to her that he might go to his sister's house in Texas if he and N ever separated. The police issued an Amber Alert for the defendant and S that included a description of the defendant's Hyundai Sonata, its license plate number, and an indication that the defendant might be heading south out of the state.7 Pennsylvania State Police received the Amber Alert as well as information that the defendant's cell phone had been found in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Officers were directed to take up positions along several of Pennsylvania's interstate highways. At approximately 11 a.m., Pennsylvania police observed a vehicle matching the description of the vehicle described in the Amber Alert and initiated a traffic stop. The defendant initially complied with orders given by the police via their vehicle's public address system to open his car door and put his hands through the window. He did not comply, however, with their subsequent order that he exit the vehicle. Rather,

he abruptly closed his door and sped away. A high speed chase ensued for approximately five miles, ending with the defendant crashing his car into the back end of a tractor trailer. The defendant was rendered unconscious by the crash. S was found crying in the backseat of the vehicle. The police took the defendant into custody and transported him to a hospital via ambulance.

As part of their investigation of the crime scene, the police found two knives in the Bridgeport apartment. One of the knives was located underneath N's hand. Although she was not holding the knife, her thumb was resting on the knife's handle.8 A forensic analysis of the knives revealed that the defendant's DNA profile was included in a sample taken from the hilt of one knife and could not be eliminated as a contributor to a sample collected from the handle of the other knife.

The state charged the defendant in a four count amended information.9 Count one charged the defendant with murdering N. Counts two and three were directed at the defendant's acts against B, accusing him of attempted murder and assault in the first degree with a dangerous instrument. Specifically, count two of the information alleged that the defendant, "with intent to cause the death of [B], did stab and attempt to cause the death of [B] ...." Count three alleged that, on the same date, time, and location referred to in count two, the defendant, "with intent to cause serious physical injury to [B], did cause serious physical injury to [B] with a dangerous instrument, to wit: a knife ...." Count four accused the defendant of risk of injury to a child.10

The defendant testified on his own behalf at trial, essentially claiming that the two women had been intoxicated, they had attacked each other with knives, and he had not intentionally harmed either woman but had struggled to take a knife from B after she had attacked him. He also claimed that he had fled with S from the apartment to shield her from the bloody aftermath of the event.11 The jury apparently did not credit the defendant's version of events, finding him guilty of all charges.

The court sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of seventy-five years of incarceration.12 This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as needed.

I

The defendant first claims that the court improperly admitted into evidence a videotape and transcript of the pretrial deposition testimony of B, who did not testify at trial. Specifically, the defendant argues that the court improperly determined that B was unavailable, a foundational prerequisite for the admission of former testimony under our rules of evidence and to comport with constitutional rights of confrontation and due...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Oscar H.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 28, 2021
    ...A. Chiarenza, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 204 Conn. App. 207, 252 A.3d 842 (2021), is...

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