Page 26 - CLT062220

26 ¦ JUNE 22, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT have reasonably concluded that the witness’s mo-
tive for stealing cell phones to finance a drug ad-
CRIMINAL APPEALS diction several years prior was not relevant to his
character for truthfulness in the present case. The
Criminal Defendant’s Constitutional court applied the same logic when upholding the
Rights Were Not Violated When He lower court’s decision to preclude defendant from
asking the witness about the facts of the witness’s
prior breach of the peace conviction.

Was Precluded From Asking The State’s APPELLATE COURT
Witness About The Underlying Facts Of
Witness’s Prior Convictions
CRIMINAL APPEALS
CASE: State of Connecticut v. Rivera
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20277 Court Reversed Habeas Court’s
COURT OPINION BY: D’Auria
DATE: June 10, 2020 • PAGES: 17 Granting Of Petitioner’s Habeas
Defendant was convicted of breach of the peace Petition, Finding Insufficient Evidence
in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third That Petitioner’s Attorney Provided
degree, and threatening in the second degree. He Ineffective Assistance
appealed, claiming that the Appellate Court er-
roneously determined that the trial court had not
erred in preventing defendant from cross-examin- CASE: Jordan v. Comm’r of Corr.
ing the state’s key witness about the facts underly- COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42550
ing the witness’s prior misdemeanor convictions. COURT OPINION BY: Prescott
The court affirmed the lower courts’ judgments. DATE: June 09, 2020 • PAGES: 34
Defendant claimed that this preclusion vio- Petitioner had previously been convicted of first-
lated his right to confrontation under the Sixth degree manslaughter and carrying a pistol or
Amendment. Defendant argued that being able revolver without a permit. He sought a writ of
to question the witness about those facts would habeas corpus, alleging that his attorney provid-
have shown the witness’s character for untruth- ed ineffective assistance by failing to adequate-
fulness. The court disagreed, concluding that the ly investigate and present available witnesses to
lower court had correctly ruled that because the support the petitioner’s claims of self defense
witness’s larceny conviction was related to verac- and third-party culpability. Prior to the habeas
ity, the defendant could ask about the conviction trial, the defense attorney died and the habeas
itself, but the underlying facts were irrelevant. court could not hear testimony about trial strat-
The court reasoned that the trial court could egy or other decisions. The habeas court granted

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune