State v. Streit

• Decision Date: 22 October 2021
• Docket Number: SC 20336
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Daniel Richard STREIT
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

341 Conn. 170

266 A.3d 864

STATE of Connecticut

v.Daniel Richard STREIT

SC 20336

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 29, 2021

Officially released October 22, 2021^*

Gary A. Mastronardi, Bridgeport, for the appellant (defendant).

Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and Karen Roberg, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

ROBINSON, C. J.

In this appeal, we consider whether evidence that the victim had conducted Internet searches for dangerous weapons in the days preceding the altercation at issue is admissible in support of a criminal defendant's claim of self-defense. The defendant, Daniel Richard Streit, appeals¹ from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that evidence that the victim had searched an Internet shopping site for weapons in the days leading up to the altercation in which the defendant fatally stabbed the victim was both irrelevant and not admissible as uncharged misconduct evidence under § 4-5 (c) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.² We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history. At all relevant times, the defendant lived in New Haven with his girlfriend, Kathleen O'Dwyer. The defendant was also dating Kathryn Wallace, who was the "on-again, off-again" girlfriend of Keith Wylie, the victim. After the victim broke into Wallace's home in September, 2017, which resulted in the issuance of a protective order and second degree breach of peace charges against him, Wallace no longer felt safe at her home and moved in with O'Dwyer and the defendant.

On the morning of October 3, 2017, the defendant and the victim engaged in a fistfight near the APT Foundation (clinic), a methadone

clinic on Congress Avenue in New Haven where Wallace was participating in a treatment program. After the fight was broken up, the victim threatened to kill the defendant. The defendant and Wallace, who was also involved in the fight, returned to their residence, where O'Dwyer photographed their injuries—the defendant had cuts and scrapes, and Wallace had a black eye. Several days later, the victim and the defendant fought again in front of the clinic. After this second fight was broken up, the victim, who had a reputation among the participants in the treatment program as a violent and aggressive person, once again threatened to kill the defendant. The defendant previously had expressed animosity toward and a desire to "get" the victim, or to "kick his ass," because of the victim's physically abusive behavior toward Wallace when they were dating.

Several days later, on Saturday, October 7, 2017, the defendant and Wallace walked to the clinic. While Wallace went inside, the defendant, who was wearing latex gloves on both hands and carrying a Smith & Wesson "special ops" knife, waited in front of the clinic. The victim arrived approximately thirty minutes later, parked his car, exited his vehicle, and walked directly toward the defendant. According to the defendant's statement to the police, the victim told him that they were " ‘going to finish this right now.’ " The defendant then lunged at the victim, and a fight ensued between them on the sidewalk in front of the clinic; during the fight, there was a struggle over the knife, and the defendant stabbed the victim seventeen times, causing nine significant wounds to the victim's neck, torso, and right arm that resulted in his death. During the altercation, the defendant was yelling for someone to pull the victim off of him. Once the defendant was able to, he and Wallace ran from the scene, with the defendant ripping off his gloves and the blood-stained Spiderman sweatshirt that he had been wearing and discarding them while running. A few minutes later, New Haven police officers responded to a call about the fight and apprehended the defendant and Wallace nearby on York Street. The police arrested the defendant, who had visible facial and hand injuries at that time. When arrested, the defendant stated that he had no regret for what had happened and that the victim "got what he deserved."

Subsequently, the state charged the defendant with manslaughter in the first degree, to which he pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried to a jury. At trial, the defendant sought to establish that he had acted in self-defense.³ In support of his claim of self-defense, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking permission to offer into evidence an "[e]xtraction [r]eport," generated using forensic software called Cellebrite, that a forensic examiner had used to examine the victim's cell phone, which had been seized by the police. The extraction report indicated that, between October 3 and the fatal altercation on October 7, the victim's cell phone had been used to search a shopping website, eBay, for weapons, including stun guns, mace guns, and brass knuckle gloves. The defendant argued that these searches, conducted after the victim had threatened to kill the defendant on October 3, were relevant to his claim of self-defense—even though he was not personally aware of them—as evidence (1) of the state of mind of both the victim and the defendant with respect to the subjective and objective reasonableness of the defendant's fear of the victim, and (2) that the victim was the initial aggressor.⁴ As a basis for admitting the extraction report, the defendant cited §§ 4-1, 4-2 and 4-4 (a) (2) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence⁵ and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Carey , 463 Mass. 378, 974 N.E.2d 624 (2012). The defendant also sought an "extension" of this court's decision in State v. Miranda , 176 Conn. 107, 405 A.2d 622 (1978). He further relied on his federal and state constitutional rights to present a defense. The state objected to the defendant's motion in limine.

After a hearing, the trial court agreed with the state's objection and denied the defendant's motion in limine. Considering the defendant's claims of relevance in the context of the well established subjective-objective standard that governs claims of self-defense under General Statutes § 53a-19 (a) ;⁶ see, e.g., State v. O'Bryan , 318 Conn. 621, 632–33, 123 A.3d 398 (2015) ; the trial court concluded that the proffered evidence was outside the "parameters specific to issues regarding self-defense and the defense of others with regard to past conduct related to the complainant or decedent, vis-à-vis the defendant in such a case." Assuming the authenticity of the searches and that the victim was the person who had conducted them, the trial court first observed that there was no evidence "that indicated anything was actually purchased" as a result of the Internet searches. Emphasizing that there was no evidence that the defendant was aware of the Internet searches or that any of the weapons he searched for were found on the victim's person or at the crime scene, the court reasoned that the evidence of the searches had a "clear" prejudicial effect insofar as they were not relevant to the defendant's state of mind for purposes of admissibility under § 4-4 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence. The trial court further determined that the searches were not admissible to prove that the victim was the initial aggressor because, under the line of cases following State v. Miranda , supra, 176 Conn. 107, 405 A.2d 622, such as State v. Whitford , 260 Conn. 610, 799 A.2d 1034 (2002), evidence of specific acts of violence not resulting in a criminal conviction may not be used to establish a victim's violent character.⁷ Ultimately, the trial court determined that the "jury ha[d] ... ample evidence to consider as to the nature of the relationship between the defendant and [the victim] sufficient to [allow the defendant to] make the argument with regard to his subjective state of mind and his fear of [the victim]. The court conclude[d] that [the Internet search evidence was] not admissible or relevant or material to any issue the jury must decide, and, even if [the evidence had] some slight relevancy, it ha[d] the potential to confuse or arouse the jury [such] that any probative value [was] outweighed by its prejudicial effect."⁸

Thereafter, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the manslaughter charge; the defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to part B of the information seeking an enhanced penalty pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-40 (a) on the ground that he was a persistent dangerous felony offender.⁹ After denying the defendant's motions for a new trial and a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court rendered judgment of conviction in accordance with the verdict and plea and sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of thirty-eight years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion in limine because the victim's Internet searches were relevant to prove the state of mind of both the victim and the defendant under the principles discussed in State v. Miranda , supra, 176 Conn. 107, 405 A.2d 622, and were not, contrary to the trial court's conclusion, offered to establish the victim's violent character. The defendant renews his reliance on Commonwealth v. Carey , supra, 463 Mass. at 379–80, 392, 974 N.E.2d 624, in which the court upheld the admission of a criminal defendant's Internet searches about strangulation as probative evidence of his intent in a sexual assault and attempted murder case, in support of his argument that the victim's repeated Internet searches for weapons, made within...