State v. Osimanti, No. 18311.
Decision Date | 09 November 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 18311. |
Citation | 299 Conn. 1,6 A.3d 790 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Jason OSIMANTI. |
Lauren Weisfeld, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, and Joseph J. Harry, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js.*
The defendant, Jason Osimanti, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a)(1),2 in connection with the death of the victim, John Barnum, following a street fight. State v. Osimanti, 111 Conn.App. 700, 701, 962 A.2d 129 (2008). The defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court's: (1) ruling precluding the admission of certain evidence concerning the victim's history of engaging in domestic violence against his former girlfriend while intoxicated, including his conviction for violation of a protective order under General Statutes § 53a-223; 3 (2) jury instructions that conflated the issuesof initial aggression and retreat with respect to the defendant's claim of self-defense; and (3) insufficient inquiry into potential bias on thepart of a juror who had personal relationships with members of the Latin Kings, the gang to which the victim had belonged. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court aptly sets forth the following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history: "On July 14, 2005, the defendant was at Custom Creations, an auto body shop owned by Orlando Rodriguez, located at 68 Elizabeth Street, Bridgeport. Rodriguez' apartment, located at 39 Elizabeth Street, was across the street. Adjacent to the shop was an empty lot. The defendant, a painter, had just returned from Rodriguez' apartment, where the defendant was monitoring the progress of two painters who were working for him. While at the shop, the defendant had been drinking alcohol, but he did not appear to be intoxicated. At one point, Rodriguez asked the defendant to pick up ... the victim, and to bring him to the shop. Rodriguez had been friendly with the defendant and the victim for 'a couple of years.'
Id., at 701-705, 962 A.2d 129.
The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that: (1) the trial court's evidentiary rulings excluding testimony about the victim's history of engaging in domestic violence while intoxicated, as well as his conviction for violating a protective order, were an abuse of discretion and a violation of his federal and state constitutional rights to present a defense; id., at 705-706, 962 A.2d 129; (2) "the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding self-defense ... [by] confus[ing] an initial aggressor'sobligation to withdraw with the duty of one using deadly force to retreat if such retreat is available and known to be completely safe"; id., at 709, 962 A.2d 129; and (3) the trial court "failed to inquire adequately into juror bias when, after testimony that the victim was a Latin King, a sitting juror alerted the court that a family member and some of the juror's friends were Latin Kings." 8 Id., at 712-13, 962 A.2d 129. The Appellate Court disagreed with these claims, concluding that: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the domestic violence evidence because it already had admitted "a wealth of testimony regarding the victim's propensity for violence"; id., at 709, 962 A.2d 129; including numerous criminal convictions, his gang membership and the defendant's testimony about the altercation; id., at 707-708, 962 A.2d 129; (2) the jury instruction was a "minor mistake" that did not mislead the jury; id., at 712, 962 A.2d 129; and (3) the trial court's inquiry into potential juror bias was "sufficient," as there was nothing in the juror's answers that would require the trial court to inquire further or find not credible his repeated statements that he could be fair and impartial. Id., at 715-16, 962 A.2d 129. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., at 717, 962 A.2d 129. This certified appeal followed. See footnote 1 of this opinion.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court's: (1) preclusion of evidence regarding the victim's history of engaging in domestic violence against his former girlfriend while intoxicated, including his conviction for violating a protective order; (2) self-defense jury instructions that improperly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sinclair
...the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was harmful." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Osimanti , 299 Conn. 1, 16, 6 A.3d 790 (2010).On the basis of the record before this court, we are compelled to conclude that the statements regarding the inspection wer......
-
State v. Medrano
...If it did not, the state would then bear the burden of proving harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., State v. Osimanti, 299 Conn. 1, 16, 6 A.3d 790 (2010); accord United States v. Brutus, supra, 505 F.3d 88-89. If it does, and the instruction merely amounted to a supervi-sory r......
-
State v. Fay
...June 14, 2016) (right to fair trial and to present defense required in camera review of witness' privileged records); State v. Osimanti, 299 Conn. 1, 17, 6 A.3d 790 (2010) (trial court "did not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to present his claim of self-defense and, speci......
-
State v. Favoccia
...to explain the complainant's seemingly odd behavior of continuing to treat her assailant respectfully.48 See, e.g., State v. Osimanti, 299 Conn. 1, 20-21, 6 A.3d 790 (2010) (reviewing summations to discern significant factual issues in case and import thereto of trial court's restriction of......