State v. Randy G.
Decision Date | 21 January 2020 |
Docket Number | AC 41488 |
Citation | 195 Conn.App. 467,225 A.3d 702 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. RANDY G. |
James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Denise B. Smoker, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Adam B. Scott, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Lavine, Elgo and Moll, Js.
The defendant, Randy G., appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him in violation of his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) admitting into evidence a police report from the underlying case in which he was convicted and (2) refusing to admit evidence of the victim's criminal complaint against a previous boyfriend. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history that inform our analysis of the defendant's claims on appeal. Prior to the events at issue in the present appeal, the defendant and the victim lived together and had a child together. Sometime thereafter, the court issued a protective order against the defendant to protect the victim. On January 5, 2017, while the protective order was in effect, the defendant went to the victim's apartment, physically assaulted her, and fled on their child's bicycle. The defendant was charged with criminal violation of a protective order, failure to comply with fingerprint requirements, larceny in the sixth degree, and assault in the third degree. The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal violation of a protective order on February 8, 2017 (underlying conviction), and the state nolled the remaining charges. On April 27, 2017, the defendant was sentenced to four years of incarceration, execution suspended after 120 days, and three years of probation.
The defendant was released from the custody of the Commissioner of Correction on May 4, 2017, and signed his conditions of probation on May 15, 2017. Those conditions required the defendant to comply with the protective order in effect, which prohibited him from contacting the victim and required him to stay 100 yards away from her. On May 23, 2017, the victim contacted the defendant's probation supervisor, Thomas Buikus II, and informed him that the defendant had come to her home, harassed her, and vandalized her property. On the same date, she gave a statement to Officer Juan Rivera III of the East Hartford Police Department, relating that she heard a banging noise outside of her apartment and, after investigating, saw the defendant looking in her window. She further stated that the defendant had come to her apartment on a bicycle, and, after about ten minutes, he left the premises on the bicycle.
An arrest warrant was issued for the defendant on August 3, 2017, for his violation of probation by failing to adhere to the no contact condition. The state thereafter charged the defendant with violation of probation, and, following a hearing, the court found that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to forty-four months of incarceration. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant first claims that the court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence during the violation of probation hearing a police report concerning his prior arrest relating to the underlying conviction because it contained inadmissible hearsay. More specifically, the defendant claims that the report was improperly admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule and as reliable hearsay, and because it contained double hearsay.
During the probation violation hearing, Rivera testified as a witness for the state. The following examination transpired:
The state then conducted redirect examination of Rivera.
We first note that (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Megos , 176 Conn. App. 133, 146, 170 A.3d 120 (2017). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ; see also State v. Giovanni P. , 155 Conn. App. 322, 327, 110 A.3d 442 (, )cert. denied, 316 Conn. 909, 111 A.3d 883 (2015).
On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the police report1 under the business record exception to the hearsay rule and, further, because the court "sua sponte broadened the bases for admission to include reliable hearsay" although the police report did not meet the standards for reliable hearsay. The defendant argues that the police report was unreliable because "[i]t details a very violent attack and home invasion," even though the defendant was convicted only on the charge of criminal violation of a protective order, and not on the assault charge, which was nolled.2 The defendant further claims that the police report was improperly admitted because it contained double hearsay, insofar as the report documented statements made by the victim and her then boyfriend. In response, the state argues that the police report was indeed reliable because the report was prepared by a police officer in the course of his duties shortly after the incident in question and was corroborated at least in part by another officer who testified at the hearing, the victim testified that the defendant previously had violated protective orders that had been put in place against him, and the defendant testified at the hearing that he was arrested and convicted twice in 2013 and once in 2017 for violating protective orders in place to protect the victim.
We disagree with the defendant's characterization of the court's ruling. We construe the court's ruling to indicate that the police report was ultimately admitted as reliable hearsay. We consider the trial court's admission of the police report as reliable hearsay particularly mindful of the following principles. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Watson
-
State v. Jackson
...App. at 281–82, 178 A.3d 1103, citing State v. Shakir, supra, 130 Conn. App. at 468, 22 A.3d 1285 ; see also State v. Randy G., 195 Conn. App. 467, 475, n.3, 225 A.3d 702, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 911, 229 A.3d 472 (2020) ; State v. Dunbar , supra, 188 Conn. App. at 652, 205 A.3d 747 ; State......
-
State v. Randy G.
...assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 195 Conn.App. 467, 225 A.3d 702 (2020), is ...