State v. Thompson

• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: Before SPEZIALE; SPEZIALE
• Citation: 191 Conn. 146,463 A.2d 611
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Isiah THOMPSON.
• Decision Date: 16 August 1983

Page 611

463 A.2d 611 191 Conn. 146 STATE of Connecticut
v.
Isiah THOMPSON. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued May 10, 1983.
Decided Aug. 16, 1983.

Page 612

Richard E. Arnold, Sp. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).

C. Robert Satti, Jr., Deputy Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on brief, was Steven Sedensky III, law student intern, for appellee (state).

Before SPEZIALE, C.J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and GRILLO, JJ.

SPEZIALE, Chief Justice.

The defendant, Isiah Thompson, was found guilty of burglary in the third degree ¹ after a trial to a jury and sentenced to a prison term of three and one-half years. His sole claim on appeal from that judgment is that the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of a police officer who had been instrumental in his apprehension and arrest. We find no error.

[191 Conn. 147] Officer John Uliano was called as a witness by the state. Although he had been identified by a previous witness as being directly involved in a foot chase and subsequent arrest of the defendant, Uliano's testimony on direct examination was limited to the following facts: The defendant was in custody, charged with burglary; Uliano had searched the defendant at the police station; and Uliano had found a Bulova watch in the defendant's front pants pocket. On cross-examination, the defendant's attorney attempted to elicit details of the arrest from Uliano. The trial court sustained the state's objections to these questions as being beyond the scope of the direct examination. ²

A defendant's right "to be confronted with [by] the witnesses against him" guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and by article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution, includes the right to reasonable cross-examination of those witnesses.

Page 613

See State v. Reed, 174 Conn. 287, [191 Conn. 148] 300, 386 A.2d 243 (1978); State v. Villafane, 171 Conn. 644, 676, 372 A.2d 82 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1106, 97 S.Ct. 1137, 51 L.Ed.2d 558 (1977). The defendant's right to cross-examination, however, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable limitation by the court. State v. Mastropetre, 175 Conn. 512, 521, 400 A.2d 276 (1978). "The scope of cross-examination is limited by the scope of the direct examination unless there is an attack on the credibility of the witness. State v. Hall, 165 Conn. 599, 607, 345 A.2d 17 [1973]; State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 64, 327 A.2d 576 [1973]; State v. Manning, 162 Conn. 112, 116, 291 A.2d 750 [1971]; Mendez v. Dorman, 151 Conn. 193, 198, 195 A.2d 561 [1963]; 81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses, § 478." State v. Zdanis, 173 Conn. 189, 195, 377 A.2d 275 (1977).

"The general rule is that restrictions on the scope of cross-examination are within the sound discretion of the trial judge ... but this discretion comes into play only after the defendant has been permitted cross-examination sufficient to satisfy...