State v. Singh
Decision Date | 26 March 2002 |
Docket Number | (SC 16476) |
Citation | 793 A.2d 226,259 Conn. 693 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. BALBIR SINGH |
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Zarella, JS. Jeremiah Donovan, with whom, on the brief, was Rita Christopher, for the appellant (defendant).
Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and James G. Clark, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant, Balbir Singh, appeals, pursuant to our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of arson in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-111 (a) (1) and (4).1 The sole issue in this appeal is whether the state's attorney's cross-examination of the defendant and his closing argument to the jury deprived the defendant of a fair trial in violation of his federal constitutional rights.2 We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts that the jury reasonably could have found. "Beginning in December, 1994, the defendant rented the first two floors of 1195 Chapel Street in New Haven, the basement of which housed the defendant's Prince Restaurant. The [upper two] floors of the building contained apartments occupied by college students. The defendant's lease was to run until October 31, 1999, but was terminable in the event that the premises were destroyed by fire or explosion. The defendant was experiencing financial difficulty with his restaurant business. In 1995, he had missed [making] some rent payments and needed to take a $10,000 loan to pay his employees. In February, 1996, the defendant admitted that his business was not `particularly good' and `just pretty much shaky.' By the spring of 1996, the defendant was driving a [taxicab] because his restaurant business was not doing well enough to meet his debts.
State v. Singh, 59 Conn. App. 638, 640-41, 757 A.2d 1175 (2000). He then brought some of the debris from the floor of the building outside to the parking lot where a state trooper and Louise, a state police canine that had been trained to detect petroleum based products, were located. Louise alerted to each of the items brought out by Dellamura, indicating the presence of such a petroleum based product.3 Dellamura also discovered that the fire alarm panel on the floor above the basement had been tampered with so that it had been disconnected from its battery backup power. He concluded that the fire had been intentionally set. Joseph Pettola, a member of the fire investigation unit of the New Haven police department, interviewed Gansen at the fire scene and obtained a description of the man he saw leaving the vicinity of the Prince Restaurant.
4 Id., 641-42.
The defendant, visibly anxious to go to the restaurant, began to leave his apartment while still wearing his sandals. "Dellamura suggested that because of the messy nature of the fire scene, the defendant should instead wear shoes. The defendant ignored Dellamura's suggestion and wore [his] sandals to the scene of the fire. The property manager of the building [Gary Dingus], who also was inspecting the fire scene, noticed that the defendant was wearing sandals at the scene of the fire.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on two counts of arson in the first degree in violation of § 53a-111 (a) (1) and (4).5 Thereafter, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of twenty-five years imprisonment, execution suspended after ten years, and five years probation. The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia,6 that prosecutorial misconduct during the course of cross-examination and closing argument deprived him of a fair trial. The Appellate Court concluded that the state's attorney's conduct was not improper and affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., 649, 654. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
Because the defendant failed to object to the alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial, he may prevail only if he satisfies all four requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989).7 We conclude that he has satisfied all four prongs of Golding.
(Citation omitted.) State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 303, 755 A.2d 868 (2000).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 538-39, 529 A.2d 653 (1987). Moreover, "prosecutorial misconduct of constitutional proportions may arise during the course of closing argument, thereby implicating the fundamental fairness of the trial itself...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Burton, 258 Conn. 153, 165, 778 A.2d 955 (2001).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ceballos
...defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct in the present case are similar to those that we recently addressed in State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 793 A.2d 226 (2002), because, as in that case, the defendant here contends that the cumulative effect of all the state's attorney's impropriet......
-
State v. James G.
...Ed. 2d 584 (2001); and the defendant "must demonstrate substantial prejudice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 699, 793 A.2d 226 (2002). In examining a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, "we must view the prosecutor's comments in the context of the entire ......
-
State v. Samuels
...907 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1990) (cumulative effect of prosecutor's comments denied defendant fundamentally fair trial); State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 793 A.2d 226 (2002); (cumulative effect of four instances of improper conduct by prosecutor deprived defendant of fair trial); State v. Santiago......
-
State v. Weatherspoon
...that the prosecutor engaged in impermissible conduct in violation of his due process right to a fair trial pursuant to State v. Singh , 259 Conn. 693, 793 A.2d 226 (2002), by conveying to the jury that it would need to find that the police officer had lied in order to find the defendant not......
-
A Servey of Criminal Law Opinion
...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, 793 A.2d 226 (2002)). [238] Id. [239] Id., n. 11. See also State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763, 787, 97 A.3d 478 (2014). [240] Id. at 19. [......
-
Trial
...suggests to the jury that the only way to acquit the defendant is to find that the prosecution’s witnesses lied. [ See State v. Singh , 259 Conn. 693, 793 A.2d 226 (Conn. 2000) (review-ing federal and state cases); Liggett v. People, 135 P.3d 725 (Colo. 2006) (prohibiting such questioning a......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...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, 793 A.2d 226 (2002)). [238] Id. [239] Id., n. 11. see also State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763, 787, 97 A.3d 478 (2014). [240] Id. at 19. [2......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...328 Conn. 938, 184 A.3d 268 (2018). [313] 180 Conn. App. 250, 183 A.3d 636, cert, granted, 328 Conn. 931, 182 A.3d 1192 (2018). [314] 259 Conn. 693, 793 A.2d 226 (2002). [315] Angel M., 180 Conn. App. at 275. [316] Id. at 278. [317] 180 Conn. App. 76, 182 A.3d 665, cert, denied, 328 Conn. 9......