State v. Sinclair

Decision Date09 May 2017
Docket NumberAC 38366
Citation162 A.3d 43,173 Conn.App. 1
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. Casey SINCLAIR

John L. Cordani, Jr., assigned counsel, with whom was Damian K. Gunningsmith, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).

Jennifer F. Miller, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Don E. Therkildsen, Jr., senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Lavine, Keller and Beach, Js.

Opinion

LAVINE, J.

The defendant, Casey Sinclair, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a–278 (b). The defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence testimonial hearsay in violation of his constitutional right to confrontation, (2) the prosecutor committed multiple acts of impropriety, and (3) the court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence inadmissible "guilt by association" evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant lived in the Bronx, New York and owned Sinclair Enterprises, a business that sold used cars. Between October, 2012, and February, 2013, the defendant and his girlfriend, Winsome Lawrence, drove to Connecticut approximately nine or ten times in a Jeep to go to a mall in Waterbury. On February 5, 2013, as they did on every other trip, the defendant drove the Jeep to Lawrence's house, and Lawrence drove the Jeep to Waterbury while the defendant sat in the passenger seat.

When they arrived in Waterbury, the defendant told Lawrence to get off the highway at an exit and directed her to a side road. Shortly thereafter, a black vehicle parked on the same side of the road. The defendant opened the center console of the Jeep, pulled a string, and took out two white parcels of heroin. He gave the bags to an individual in the black vehicle and walked back to the Jeep with money in his hands. On his way back to the Jeep, the defendant saw a marked police vehicle, and he threw the money into a bush. Lawrence drove the defendant to a nearby gas station. At the gas station, she heard the defendant say on his cell phone, "Jay, come and pick me up ... I'm going back for the money." The defendant then went into the gas station, telling Lawrence that he needed to get a black bag. After he returned to the Jeep, the black vehicle mentioned previously came and picked up the defendant. The defendant left the gas station for approximately ten minutes.1 When he returned, he had a black bag filled with money, and he told Lawrence to drive to the mall.

Earlier that day, at approximately 4:30 p.m., a detective with the Waterbury Police Department received an anonymous tip that "activity" was going to take place that night in Waterbury.2 The detective relayed this information to Gary Angon, a sergeant with the Waterbury Police Department. On the basis of the tip, Angon assigned the officers in his unit to survey the area around the mall. At approximately 8 p.m., Angon saw the Jeep. He radioed the officers, telling them that he had observed a vehicle that fit the description of the one that they were looking for. Angon pulled the Jeep over, and the defendant appeared more nervous than most people who interact with the police because he kept looking up and down the street and hesitating when answering Angon's questions. Angon asked the defendant who owned the Jeep, and the defendant replied that "it was his friend's."

Shortly thereafter, James Dickey, a detective with the Waterbury Police Department, and Bella, Dickey's narcotics detection canine, conducted a narcotics detection sweep of the Jeep. Bella alerted Dickey to the center console of the Jeep, and Dickey and Eric Medina, an officer with the Waterbury Police Department, found a number of prepackaged bags of heroin and a black bag filled with money in a trap in the center console. The defendantand Lawrence were placed under arrest.

The defendant was charged with possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent.3 During the state's case-in-chief, Angon testified about the police surveillance that ended with the arrests of the defendant and Lawrence. He also testified, over the defendant's objection, that during the course of his investigation, he learned that the Jeep had been inspected at Manny's Auto Repair, which was located next to Sinclair Enterprises, the defendant's place of business, in New York. Medina testified that he recovered approximately 10,000 bags of heroin, stored in ten bricks, that were worth approximately $45,000 to $60,000 and a black bag filled with cash worth $12,248 in the Jeep. Charmaine Henriques, Lawrence's cousin, testified that she had spoken with the defendant after the incident, and he told her that he "was trying a thing and g[ot] fucked."

Lawrence testified for the state,4 describing the drug transaction and the events that took place at the gas station. Lawrence also testified that the Jeep belonged to the defendant. The state introduced into evidence a videotape that depicted Lawrence, the defendant, and the black vehicle at the gas station. The videotape also showed the driver of the black vehicle, and Angon testified, over the defendant's objection, that he recognized him as Terrence Saunders, a known heroin dealer.

The defendant testified on his own behalf that, contrary to Lawrence's testimony, he and Lawrence had only driven to Connecticut on two occasions, the second time being the night on which they were arrested. He testified that on the night of the arrest, he and Lawrence were going to a casino but decided to stop by the mall for dinner. Later, on direct examination, he contradicted himself, testifying that they went to Connecticut to meet a man named Paul because Paul wanted to sell a vehicle to him. He testified that Paul was in the black vehicle that picked him up at the gas station, but that there were also two other men in the vehicle whom the defendant did not know. He denied ever seeing the narcotics or the money in the Jeep prior to their discovery by the police. He also denied owning the Jeep, testifying that the Jeep belonged to Lawrence.

On January 30, 2015, the jury found the defendant guilty of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent. The court sentenced the defendant to eight years imprisonment, five years of which were mandatory. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The defendant first claims that the court violated his right to confrontation when it admitted into evidence Angon's testimony that the Jeep was inspected at Manny's Auto Repair, located next to the defendant's business in the Bronx, New York. Specifically, the defendant argues that evidence of the inspection information was inadmissible testimonial hearsay and that admitting the evidence was not harmless error because the inspection location was a critical piece of evidence linking the defendant to the Jeep. The state argues that the evidence was not testimonial hearsay, and even if it was, the state showed that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that even if the defendant's right to confrontation was violated, any violation was harmless error.

The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. Angon testified on direct examination that, on the basis of his training and experience, a drug dealer often uses a vehicle he owns during a drug transaction but registers it in someone else's name. The dealer will also have someone else drive the vehicle in order to "avoid any connection with the drug." He also testified that narcotics are often transported from New York to Waterbury. The state then introduced into evidence a printout detailing the Jeep's registration information, but neither the place of inspection nor a code that related to the place of inspection was included on the printout.5 Relying on the printout, Angon testified that the Jeep was registered in New York to a man named Victor A. Manana. The state asked Angon where the Jeep was inspected, and defense counsel objected on the ground of hearsay because Angon would be testifying about "information he gleaned somewhere else." The court overruled the objection, and Angon testified that the Jeep was inspected at Manny's Auto Repair, which was a business located adjacent to the defendant's business, Sinclair Enterprises.

The defendant questioned Angon during cross-examination about how he obtained the inspection information. Angon replied that sometime in the last two days, someone in his "office contacted New York State police to see if they could translate ... the information that's on the printout." Outside the presence of the jury, the defendant moved to strike any and all of Angon's testimony relating to the Jeep's inspection information. The defendant argued that Angon's testimony was hearsay because Angon testified about information he obtained from someone in his office who obtained it from an unidentified individual in New York. He also argued that admitting the evidence violated Crawford.6 The state argued that a New York officer had merely translated a "somewhat confusing registration document ...." The court denied the motion to strike.

During his case, the defendant testified that Manny's Auto Repair was located on a lot next to Sinclair Enterprises, but that the properties were separated by a fence and that he did not have any ownership interest in Manny's Auto Repair. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he used Manny's Auto Repair to per-form repairs on the used cars he sold. The state also put into evidence Sinclair Enterprises' Internet site that advertised it as a "used car service and auto repair facility located in the Bronx."

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Sinclair
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 9, 2019
    ...(2) improper statements in the prosecutor's closing argument violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. State v. Sinclair , 173 Conn. App. 1, 7, 24, 162 A.3d 43 (2017). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal to this court. We affirm the Appellate Court's jud......
  • State v. Pugh
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 2017
    ...doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt ...." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sinclair , 173 Conn.App. 1, 10, 162 A.3d 43, cert. granted on other grounds, 326 Conn. 904, 163 A.3d 1205 (2017).The jury reasonably could have found the following re......
  • State v. Pugh
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 2017
    ...doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt . . . ." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sinclair, 173 Conn. App. 1, 10, 162 A.3d 43, cert. granted on other grounds, 326 Conn. 904, A.3d (2017). The jury reasonably could have found the following relevan......
  • Lesueur v. Lesueur
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 2017
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • A Servey of Criminal Law Opinion
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 91, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...243 Conn. 324, 333, 702 A.2d 1187 (1997), cert, denied, 523 U.S. 1111 (1998)). [232] Id. at 202. [233] Id. [234] Id. at 203. [235] 173 Conn. App. 1, 162 A.3d 43, cert, granted, 326 Conn. 904, 163 A.3d 1205 (2017). [236] Id. at 16. [237] Id. at 18 (quoting State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 712,......
  • A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 91, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...243 Conn. 324, 333, 702 A.2d 1187 (1997), cert. Denied, 523 U.S. 1111 (1998)). [232] Id. at 202. [233] Id. [234] Id. at 203. [235] 173 Conn.App. 1, 162 A.3d 43, cert. Granted, 326 Conn. 904, 163 A.3d 1205 (2017). [236] Id. at 16. [237] Id. at 18 (quoting State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 712, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT