State v. Simms
Decision Date | 05 April 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 5836,5836 |
Citation | 539 A.2d 601,14 Conn.App. 1 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Floyd SIMMS. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Suzanne Zitzer, Asst. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was Joette Katz, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Leah Hawley, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Herbert Appleton, Asst. State's Atty., and Brett Dellalla, Legal Intern, for appellee (State).
Before BORDEN, SPALLONE and NORCOTT, JJ.
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of accessory to commit assault of a victim sixty or older in the first degree, General Statutes §§ 53a-59a, 53a-59(a)(3), 53a-8; and robbery in the second degree, General Statutes § 53a-139(a)(1).
There was ample evidence produced at the trial from which the jury could reasonably have found the following facts: While kneeling and praying inside Saint Joseph's Cathedral in Hartford, William McGee, ninety years of age, was assaulted and robbed by the defendant. During the time McGee was engaged in prayer, the defendant, along with two companions, Daniel Jones and Wayne Mohagle, entered the church. While his companions lingered at the entrance, the defendant approached the victim, grabbed him around the neck, shoved him under the pew and attempted to kick him. The defendant then extracted eleven or twelve dollars from the victim's pockets. As McGee attempted to leave the church, either Jones or Mohagle hit him on the head, thereby causing the most serious injuries. As a result of this attack, McGee was hospitalized for approximately one month.
During the defendant's trial, Jones testified that it was he who had assaulted and robbed McGee and that neither the defendant nor Mohagle had participated in the crime. Jones had previously pleaded guilty, under the Alford doctrine, 1 to charges stemming from the incident at the church. For purposes of impeachment, the trial court permitted the state to introduce a partial transcript of Jones' Alford plea canvass into evidence. The state contended, and the court agreed, that Jones' statements made during his Alford plea, in which he denied culpability, were inconsistent with his trial testimony where he assumed the sole onus for the crime and exonerated the two other participants.
The only issue presented to us is whether the trial court erred in admitting the transcript of Jones' Alford plea as a prior statement inconsistent with his trial testimony. The defendant argues that an Alford plea, by its very nature, does not constitute a denial or admission of the facts upon which the charge is based and, therefore, as a matter of law, it cannot be found to be inconsistent with testimony concerning these facts. We disagree, and hold that the admission of the statements made during the prior Alford plea was not erroneous.
The defendant's reliance upon his assertion that an Alford plea neither admits nor denies the facts on which the charge is based is misplaced. There is no doubt that, in general, an Alford plea, may be construed as a protestation of innocence. No such construction is necessary, however, for the trial court to find that the prior proceedings contained statements inconsistent to the witness' present trial testimony. The court is concerned with whether statements made by the witness on a prior occasion are inconsistent with those made by him during the later proceedings. The fact that the prior statements were made during an Alford plea is not the controlling factor as to admissibility. The court must look to the statements themselves and conclude whether such statements are, in fact, inconsistent with the witness' present assertions.
In this case, the court expressly stated:
The determination of inconsistency is a matter for the trial court. State v. Piskorski, 177 Conn. 677, 710-11, 419 A.2d 866, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935, 100 S.Ct. 283, 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979); State v. Reed, 174 Conn. 287, 302-303, 386 A.2d 243 (1978); see also State v. Villafane, 171 Conn. 644, 671-72, 372 A.2d 82 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1106, 97 S.Ct. 1137, 51 L.Ed.2d 558 (1977). The court's ruling on the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements, like all of its rulings on the admissibility of evidence, is accorded great deference. State v. Boucino, 199 Conn. 207, 225, 506 A.2d 125 (1986). State v. Beckenbach, 198 Conn. 43, 47, 501 A.2d 752 (1985).
Furthermore, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simms v. Warden
...to the validity of General Statutes § 52-273.2 The Appellate Court affirmed the plaintiff's criminal conviction in State v. Simms, 14 Conn.App. 1, 539 A.2d 601 (1988). We affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court. State v. Simms, 211 Conn. 1, 557 A.2d 914, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 843, 110......
-
State v. Simms
...with the trial testimony in this case?" The facts that the jury could reasonably have found are set forth in State v. Simms, 14 Conn.App. 1, 539 A.2d 601 (1988). We summarize those facts pertinent to the issue on this appeal: While kneeling and praying inside Saint Joseph's Cathedral in Har......
-
Doe v. Univ. of Conn., 3:09 CV 1071 (JGM)
...statement, when the convicted defendant testifies at another proceeding in a manner that contradicts his prior plea. State v. Simms, 14 Conn. App. 1 (App. Ct. 1988), aff'd, 211 Conn. 1, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 843 (1989). In Simms, at his Alford plea, the witness Jones had denied his culpabi......
-
State v. Marino, 7591
...here, statements taken from the transcripts of an Alford plea canvass are admissible for the jury's consideration. State v. Simms, 14 Conn.App. 1, 3-4, 539 A.2d 601 (1988), aff'd, 211 Conn. 1, 557 A.2d 914 We conclude that the trial court properly allowed the state to inquire, on cross-exam......