State v. Rivera, (SC 16964).
Decision Date | 06 April 2004 |
Docket Number | (SC 16964). |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ANTHONY RIVERA. |
Sullivan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js.
Glenn W. Falk, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Kate Mogulescu, law student intern, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was David Shepack, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant, Anthony Rivera, was convicted, following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a,1 felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c,2 burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (2),3 arson in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (1) (B),4 and tampering with evidence in violation of General Statutes § 53a-155 (a).5 On appeal,6 the defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) allowed a witness to testify about a statement made by another person who was not a trial witness, describing that person's involvement in the crimes with which the defendant was charged, thereby depriving the defendant of his confrontation rights under the sixth amendment to the federal constitution and his due process rights under both the state and federal constitutions; (2) deprived the defendant of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial when it denied his requests for a one day continuance to allow him the opportunity to rehabilitate his alibi witness; and (3) deprived the defendant of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by denying his motion for a mistrial following the court's decision to deny his motion for a continuance. We reject the defendant's claims and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In the fall of 1996, the victim, Audrey Lover, resided at 201 West West Hill Road in Barkhamsted. Her daughter, Jennifer Cosseboom, was a college student living on campus at Central Connecticut State University (university) in New Britain. Cosseboom socialized with a group of teenagers and young adults, including the defendant and Michael Glanville, many of whom frequently gathered at the home of Lynn Ducharme,7 a drug-addicted woman who lived in Winsted.
On the evening of October 16, 1996, the victim visited her close friend and neighbor, Pamela Balsamo, until approximately 9 p.m. While the victim was there, the defendant telephoned Balsamo's house looking for Cosseboom's telephone number. That same night, the university's police dispatch records logged an attempt by a person who identified himself as Tony Robledo, one of several aliases used by the defendant, to contact Cosseboom. Additionally, Ducharme's telephone records show that, in the evening hours on October 16, two telephone calls were made to the university.
Later that same evening, several youths, including the defendant, Glanville and John Rizzi, gathered at Ducharme's house for a party. At one point in the evening, Ducharme emerged from her bedroom yelling for everyone to keep the noise down. She argued with Glanville, in particular, concerning long-distance calls that he had made with her telephone, and then she returned to her bedroom. Soon thereafter, the defendant, Glanville and Rizzi departed in Rizzi's car, with Rizzi driving. According to Rizzi, he drove Glanville and the defendant to a house in Barkhamsted that, in Rizzi's description, was consistent in appearance and location to Balsamo's home.
Shortly before 7 a.m. the following morning, October 17, 1996, Theresa Blanchard and her son were passing by the victim's house when they noticed that it was on fire. They alerted the victim's neighbors, who called 911, and fire and rescue personnel arrived on the scene soon thereafter. Firefighters found that both the front and back doors to the victim's home were closed and unlocked. Once inside, they discovered the victim's naked body lying on the floor in the lower level of the house. A small fire was burning on the victim's body, which had been badly burned.
An investigation revealed that the fire had been set deliberately. Flammable liquid and other combustible material had been poured onto the victim's body, which then had been ignited. Additionally, an oil lamp was found in several pieces on the lower level of the house; the wick assembly of the lamp was found between the victim's legs, and the base and chimney of the lamp were on top of a television. Subsequent forensic tests revealed that samples of carpeting and charred wood removed from the victim's house contained a liquid substance that was consistent with the oil from the oil lamp. On the basis of the results of an autopsy performed on the victim by Harold Wayne Carver, the state's chief medical examiner, he determined that the victim's cause of death was manual strangulation. Although Carver could not pinpoint the time of death, he determined that the victim had eaten not many hours before her death.
Some time in the late fall of 1996, several people overheard conversations of the defendant in which he made incriminating statements. Anaira Rodriguez, who was involved romantically with the defendant at the time, overheard him state that "he had killed a woman" and had "fucked her up because she got stupid." She also heard him make some mention of a fire. Leonard St. Denis, another friend of the defendant, related how the defendant had told him that he and Glanville had broken into the victim's home, that the defendant had choked the victim to death because he believed she could identify him and that the defendant and Glanville had started a fire "to get rid of the evidence" using, as an accelerant, an oil lamp located on the premises. St. Denis' description of the event, as told to him by the defendant, was consistent with the physical evidence found by the police. On another occasion, while watching a television news report about the victim's homicide, the defendant told St. Denis that "that's the woman I did." Finally, in June, 1997, in a conversation with Joan Longo, the defendant threatened that if he did not get money owed to him by a third person, he would "jack that bitch like he did Audrey," and he engaged in a strangulation gesture. The medical examiner's findings of injuries to the victim's neck were consistent with strangulation.
Glanville also made incriminating statements. In March, 1997, he drove his nephew, Julio Caraballo, to a lake in Barkhamsted and confided in him that he and the defendant had broken into a woman's house looking for items to steal. Glanville stated that when he and the defendant were discovered by the woman, the defendant choked her and used an oil lamp to burn the house in an attempt to destroy any evidence.
The defendant was arrested in May, 1998, pursuant to a fugitive warrant in an unrelated case, and subsequently was charged in connection with the offenses in the present case in August, 1998. After learning that Glanville had given the police a statement, the defendant gave a statement implicating Glanville. According to the defendant, Glanville had told him that he had broken the victim's neck and then burned the house in an attempt to destroy the evidence. The defendant explained that Glanville believed that Cosseboom, the victim's daughter, would collect $2 million in insurance proceeds and that Glanville would benefit because Cosseboom would be "hooking him up." The defendant, however, refused to swear to his statement, stating: "I can't pay back with a lie."
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all the counts. Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict and sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of fifty-four years imprisonment. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
We first address the defendant's claim that the trial court improperly allowed Caraballo to testify concerning Glanville's statement to him, and thus violated the defendant's right to confrontation under the sixth amendment8 to the United States constitution, and his right to due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution.9 In response, the state contends that the trial court properly admitted Glanville's statement under the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest, and that the admission of that statement did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation. We agree with the state.
The following additional facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this claim. After the defendant's trial had begun, Glanville's nephew, Caraballo, was arrested on a charge unrelated to the present case. While he was in custody, he told state police about the statement that Glanville had made to him at the lake in March, 1997.
When he was first called to testify in the defendant's case, Caraballo answered some background questions but then expressed reluctance about testifying further. He ultimately refused to answer any further questions. The court, at the urging of the state, then held Caraballo in contempt. Before sending him to prison, the court afforded Caraballo the opportunity to confer with counsel. After speaking with his attorney, Caraballo returned to the courtroom and testified as to the nature of his conversation with Glanville in March, 1997. Caraballo testified that Glanville had told him: "`We broke into some lady's house . . . fucked up, shit happened.'" According to Caraballo, Glanville explained that he and the defendant had broken into the victim's house in search of jewelry, and that Glanville had remained in the kitchen as a lookout as the defendant went through the house. The victim came into the kitchen, and noticed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Pierre, No. 17227.
......Rivera, 268 Conn. 351, 360, 844 A.2d 191 (2004), quoting State v. Merriam, 264 Conn. 617, 633, 835 A.2d 895 (2003). . Carr's written ......
-
State v. Williams
......19 See also State v. Rivera , 268 Conn. 351, 379, 844 A.2d 191 (2004) ("[a]lthough resistant to precise cataloguing, such factors revolve around the circumstances before the ......
-
Skakel v. State Of Conn.
......Lopez, supra, 319 ("[t]hird party statements that exculpate an accused are suspect because of the danger of fabrication"); State v. Rivera, 221 Conn. 58, 71, 602 A.2d 571 (1992) (requirement of corroboration is for "purpose of circumventing fabrication"); State v. DeFreitas, 179 Conn. ......
-
State v. Stephenson
......(B) such fire or explosion was intended to conceal some other criminal act .." See also State v. Rivera , 268 Conn. 351, 353 n.4, 844 A.2d 191 (2004). Section 53a-49 (a) provides in relevant part that "[a] person is guilty of an attempt to commit a ......
-
Confronting Crawford
...and Lucia Padilla, TheRight to Confront Witnesses After Crawford v. Washington, COLO. LAW., Sept. 2004, at 83, 84 (citing State v. Rivera, 844 A.2d 191, 201-02 (Conn. 2004); Demons v. State, 595 S.E.2d 76, 80 (Ga. 2004)). 85. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 72 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). 86. Id. a......
-
Hearsay after Crawford: a practitioner's guide.
...Crawford). (64.) Id. at 642. (65.) Id. (66.) See id. at 645. (67.) Id. (68.) Id. (69.) Lee, 374 F.3d at 645; see also State v. Rivera, 844 A.2d 191,202 (Conn. 2004) (holding that a statement made in confidence to a close family member was not (70.) 928 N.E.2d 214, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (......
-
The Right to Confront Witnesses After Crawford v. Washington
...(plurality opinion). 44. White, 502 U.S. 346, 352-53 (1992). 45. Crawford, supra, note 5 at 1370. 46. Id. at 1374. 47. Conn. v. Rivera, 844 A.2d 191, 201 (Conn. 2004); v. State, 595 S.E.2d 76, 80 (Ga. 2004). 48. Crawford, supra, note 5 at 1359 and n.1. 49. Fry, supra, note 3. 50. Id. at 309......