State v. Rivera
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Citation | 200 Conn. 44,509 A.2d 505 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 1986 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Antonio RIVERA. |
Page 505
v.
Antonio RIVERA.
Decided May 27, 1986.
Joseph M. Shortall, with whom, on brief, was Michael Connor, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Kathleen M. Van Der Aue, Sp. Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on brief, were John M. Bailey, [200 Conn. 45] State's Atty., James G. Clark, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., and Lawrence Daly, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before [200 Conn. 44] PETERS, C.J., and HEALEY, DANNEHY, SANTANIELLO and CALLAHAN, JJ.
[200 Conn. 45] SANTANIELLO, Associate Justice.
The defendant, Antonio Rivera, was charged by information with two counts of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134(a)(4). 1 He elected a trial to the court and on September 25, 1984 was found guilty of one count of robbery in the first degree and one count of attempted robbery in the first degree. 2 He subsequently received a total
Page 506
effective sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. On appeal, he raises two claims of error: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the crimes, and (2) that the trial court erred in permitting the state to impeach its own witness. We find no error.The court, sitting as the trier of fact, found that the defendant and another man entered the Garment Care Cleaners in Hartford at approximately 5:30 p.m. on November 14, 1983, stole money from the store's cash register and attempted to rob a customer, William [200 Conn. 46] Klossey. The defendant was unarmed and wore a ski band over his eyes with holes cut in it so that he could see. The other man carried a gun. The only two people in the store at the time were Klossey and an employee, Diane Blaszkiewicz. The defendant pushed Klossey from behind, searched his pockets and ordered the other robber to take the money from the register. The two men were in the store approximately four minutes before they fled on foot.
At trial, the state called four principal witnesses: Klossey, Officer Nancy McClure, Blaszkiewicz and Detective Joseph Schatz. The defendant chose not to take the stand and not to call any witnesses on his own behalf.
Klossey testified about how the robbery had occurred and how one of the men had searched him. He made no in-court identification of the defendant, but said that Blaszkiewicz, who had been upset by the robbery, had exclaimed at least three times while the two men were leaving that "It's Tony, I know him." The defendant objected to the introduction of the statements on hearsay grounds, but the court admitted them under the spontaneous utterance exception. 3
McClure, one of the Hartford police officers who investigated the crimes, testified that when she arrived at the store a few minutes after the robbery, Blaszkiewicz had appeared angry. She said that Blaszkiewicz first described the assailants and then selected a photograph of the defendant from an array by pounding her finger on it and signing the back. 4 During her testimony McClure was never specifically asked, [200 Conn. 47] nor did she volunteer, why Blaszkiewicz was shown the photos or why the defendant's photo was selected.
Blaszkiewicz testified extensively on the details of the robbery, but exculpated the defendant from involvement in the crimes. She testified that she had been acquainted with the defendant for twelve years and that she had selected his photograph because she knew him, and not because he was one of the robbers. She also testified that she knew two other people in the array shown her by the police besides the defendant. Blaszkiewicz denied ever having stated that "It's Tony, I know him" and said that the defendant's voice was different from that of either of the robbers.
Page 507
Schatz was the last witness called at trial. After he took the stand, the state requested that Blaszkiewicz be declared hostile and that it be permitted to impeach her credibility by introducing a prior inconsistent statement made to Schatz shortly after the robbery. The state disclaimed surprise but argued that her testimony on the identity of the robbers was adverse to its case and that she was biased because of her close relationship with the defendant. The court declared Blaszkiewicz to be hostile and allowed the state to inquire as to what Schatz remembered her saying after the robbery. Schatz then testified that she had said, while pointing to the defendant's picture, "That's Tony, the son of a bitch that robbed me."
The defendant first claims that because Blaszkiewicz did not identify him as one of the robbers at trial, there was insufficient evidence to place him at the scene of [200 Conn. 48] the crime and to sustain his conviction. "...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edwards
...reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Rivera, 200 Conn. 44, 48, 509 A.2d 505 (1986), quoting State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620, 490 A.2d 68 (1985). The intent which the defendant had in using a name oth......
-
State v. Williams, 12244
...statement in hope that the jury will use it substantively." State v. Jasper, 200 Conn. 30, 34, 508 A.2d 1387 (1986); State v. Rivera, 200 Conn. 44, 49, 509 A.2d 505 (1986). Under the facts of this case, neither prong of the test was First, we cannot conclude from this record that the state ......
-
State v. Whelan
...witness without a showing of surprise, hostility or adversity. State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 17, 509 A.2d 493 (1986); see State v. Rivera, 200 Conn. 44, 49, 509 A.2d 505 (1986); State v. Jasper, 200 Conn. 30, 34, 508 A.2d 1387 (1986). " 'Whatever validity the "voucher" rule may once have en......
-
State v. Butler, 13140
...Conn. 481, 485, 129 A. 379 (1925); or written. Schurgast v. Schumann, 156 Conn. 471, 482, 242 A.2d 695 (1968); see also State v. Rivera, 200 Conn. 44, 51 n. 5, 509 A.2d 505 (1986). Where a party seeks to impeach a witness by using extrinsic evidence, certain standards must be met. The incon......
-
State v. Edwards
...reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Rivera, 200 Conn. 44, 48, 509 A.2d 505 (1986), quoting State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620, 490 A.2d 68 (1985). The intent which the defendant had in using a name oth......
-
State v. Williams, 12244
...statement in hope that the jury will use it substantively." State v. Jasper, 200 Conn. 30, 34, 508 A.2d 1387 (1986); State v. Rivera, 200 Conn. 44, 49, 509 A.2d 505 (1986). Under the facts of this case, neither prong of the test was First, we cannot conclude from this record that the state ......
-
State v. Whelan
...witness without a showing of surprise, hostility or adversity. State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 17, 509 A.2d 493 (1986); see State v. Rivera, 200 Conn. 44, 49, 509 A.2d 505 (1986); State v. Jasper, 200 Conn. 30, 34, 508 A.2d 1387 (1986). " 'Whatever validity the "voucher" rule may once have en......
-
State v. Butler, 13140
...Conn. 481, 485, 129 A. 379 (1925); or written. Schurgast v. Schumann, 156 Conn. 471, 482, 242 A.2d 695 (1968); see also State v. Rivera, 200 Conn. 44, 51 n. 5, 509 A.2d 505 (1986). Where a party seeks to impeach a witness by using extrinsic evidence, certain standards must be met. The incon......