State v. Suckley
| Decision Date | 08 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 9108,9108 |
| Citation | 597 A.2d 1285,26 Conn.App. 65 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. David SUCKLEY. |
William R. Schipul, Asst. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, were William Holden, Public Defender, Bridgeport, and Barbara Binford, Trumbull, for appellant (defendant).
Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, State's Atty., and Patrick J. Clifford, Sr. Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before SPALLONE, DALY and LAVERY, JJ.
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of attempted murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49(a) and 53a-54a and of carrying a pistol or a revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35. The defendant claims that the trial court should not have admitted into evidence a photograph of weapons, seized in a separate proceeding involving the defendant, to bolster the credibility of a police officer's testimony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury could have reasonably found the following facts. On January 1, 1989, the victim and his wife were driving on Route 66 in Southington when they approached a traffic light. The defendant and his girl friend were in a white Pinto in front of the victim's car stopped at the traffic light. When the traffic light turned green and the defendant's car failed to move, the victim sounded his horn. The defendant responded by gesturing at the victim with his middle finger. The victim responded in kind. The victim drove around the defendant's car and entered Interstate 691 eastbound. While on the highway, the victim observed the defendant following him closely. The victim pulled over to the shoulder to let the defendant pass him. As he did so, the defendant made a quick right turn and parked alongside the victim. Both the victim and the defendant exited their cars and an argument ensued. The victim grabbed the defendant and dragged him to the side of the road by an overpass. The victim said to the defendant, "I'd like to throw you off of this bridge." The defendant said to his girl friend, "Shoot this guy." The defendant was not armed at this point. The defendant's girl friend and the victim's wife exited their respective vehicles. Because of the gun threat, the victim told his wife to return to the car. He released the defendant and returned to his car. After he was released, the defendant went to his car and got a handgun for which he had neither a state nor a town permit. As the victim was seated in his car and preparing to shut the door in order to leave, the defendant said, "This is for you," and held the handgun inside the victim's car and shot him. The bullet entered the victim's upper left chest in the area below his collar bone. The defendant returned to his car and fled from the scene. Although the victim and his wife could not read the license plate number, they did observe that the vehicle had a temporary Florida plate.
The victim drove to the Meriden-Wallingford hospital and the police were called. The victim and his wife gave the police a description of the defendant, his girl friend and their car with the temporary Florida plate. A composite sketch of the defendant was made by a police artist and released to newspapers. Officer William Gordon of the Middlebury police department saw an article about the incident in the Waterbury paper. Approximately a week before the shooting, the officer had stopped the defendant and his girl friend in a white Pinto and cited the defendant for driving an unregistered motor vehicle. The defendant's car had been towed to a motel. Gordon passed this information on to the state police. Through this and other information, the state police located the girl friend. With her permission, the state police searched the motel room and found six rounds of .22 pistol ammunition, the motor vehicle summons issued by Gordon and a photograph of the defendant. The victim and his wife identified the defendant from a photograph array and an arrest warrant was issued for the defendant. After the incident, the defendant had poured kerosene into his car, lit it on fire and threw his gun into Lake Quassapaug. Also, he testified that he did not stay with his girl friend after the shooting because he knew that he had done something wrong and he wanted to avoid the police.
At the trial, Gordon testified as follows without objection to the details of the earlier stop where he had cited the defendant for driving an unregistered motor vehicle and misuse of license plates.
He further testified without objection as follows:
Gordon testified also that he had seized a Missouri license plate that was on the car and a metal Florida license plate that was in the car. He did not take an expired temporary Florida license plate that was on the floor of the car. The state then attempted to introduce the summons and a photograph of the articles that Gordon removed from the car. The following colloquy occurred which is the crux of the defendant's appeal.
The sole claim of the defendant is that the trial court improperly allowed the photograph that depicted two knives, a baseball bat, a club with the words "helter skelter" on it, and two license plates as a full exhibit. The defendant claims that this put before the jury evidence of violent objects allegedly possessed by the defendant just prior to the date of the offense in this case, and that the graphic presentation of these weapons created an atmosphere of violence that predisposed the jury to believe that the defendant was a bad, violent person.
The trial court admitted the photograph not because it was relevant, but rather to bolster the credibility of Gordon. When the photograph...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Elmer G., (AC 37596).
...has first been attacked." C. Tait & E. Prescott, Connecticut Evidence (5th Ed. 2014) § 6.27.2 (a), p. 380; accord State v. Suckley , 26 Conn.App. 65, 72, 597 A.2d 1285, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 901, 600 A.2d 1028 (1991) ; see also Conn. Code Evid. §§ 6–6(a) and 6–11(b). Once the credibility ......
-
Constantine v. Schneider
...187 Conn. 602, 607-608, 447 A.2d 734 (1982); Mei v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., supra, at 316, 268 A.2d 639; State v. Suckley, 26 Conn.App. 65, 72, 597 A.2d 1285, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 901, 600 A.2d 1028 (1991). As stated above, the standard to be used for determining whether an impro......
-
State v. Burney
...that evidence offered to support a witness' credibility is inadmissible until such time as it has been attacked. State v. Suckley, 26 Conn.App. 65, 72, 597 A.2d 1285 (1991) ("Connecticut follows the federal rules of evidence in that the credibility of a witness cannot be supported until aft......
-
State v. Elmer G.
...has first been attacked." C. Tait & E. Prescott, Connecticut Evidence (5th Ed. 2014) § 6.27.2 (a), p. 380; accord State v. Suckley, 26 Conn. App. 65, 72, 597 A.2d 1285, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 901, 600 A.2d 1028 (1991); see also Conn. Code Evid. §§ 6-6 (a) and 6-11 (b). Once the credibility......