Skip to main content

State v. Ayala

Citations

  • 333 Conn. 225

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court had improperly admitted certain testimony. At trial, the state introduced evidence indicating that the defendant and the victim had been members of a particular street gang and that the victim, prior to being murdered, was planning to leave that gang to join another gang. T, another gang member, testified that a gang leader, after learning about the victim's intent to leave the gang, ordered T to kill the victim and that, when T refused, the defendant vol- unteered to do so. Another member of the gang, R, testified that he had been in the victim's vehicle with, among others, the gang leader, the defendant, and the victim on the night of the victim's death. R testified that he had heard a gunshot shortly after leaving the vehicle and that, about one-half hour later, the defendant admitted to him that he had killed the victim. R testified that he then went back to the vehicle and saw the victim's lifeless body. R also testified that, a few days later, the gang leader told him that the defendant had killed the victim at his direction. In addition, T testified that he had told the victim prior to the murder about the threat to the victim's life and that the defendant had later expressed remorse to T for having killed the victim. Another witness, W further testified that the victim had made statements to him on the night of the murder in which the victim expressed fear of the gang. The defendant moved to preclude R's testimony regarding the statement made by the gang leader to R that the defendant had killed the victim at the gang leader's direction and W's testimony regarding the victim's fear of the gang. The trial court denied the defendant's motions, concluding, inter alia, that R's testimony regarding the gang leader's statement to him was admissible under the hearsay exception for

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • although physical evidence linking defendant to murder would have made state’s case stronger, lack of such evidence did not necessarily render state’s case weak
  • ‘‘in evaluating harm [we] look to see how the state used [the inadmissible] evidence in its closing argument’’
  • ‘‘[the fact finder] was free to make its credibility determination, and we do not second-guess that determination’’
  • man- ner in which state used evidence in its closing argument is significant when evaluating harm
  • ‘‘we must defer to the [trier of fact’s] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • jury was fully informed and not deprived of critical evidence regarding witnesses’ credibility

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.