State v. Bermudez
Citations
- 195 Conn. App. 780
Syllabus
Convicted of the crime of felony murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that certain of the trial court's evidentiary rulings constituted harmful error that entitled him to a new trial, and that other evidentiary rulings by the court deprived him of his constitutional rights to present a defense and to confront witnesses. The defendant and his brothers, B and S, robbed the victim when he returned home at night after closing the bar that he owned. The defendant then shot and killed the victim. Twelve years later, A, the estranged wife of S, gave the police a written statement that implicated the defendant, B and S in the victim's death. A, who knew that the defendant, B and S were affiliated with gangs, delayed providing information to the police out of fear that the defendant and S would retaliate against her or her family. S, who had regularly abused A throughout their relationship, beat her on the night of the shooting and threatened to kill her mother. While the defendant was incarcerated on unrelated charges during the twelve years after the shooting, he instructed A to write intimate and salacious letters to him so that he could discredit her in the event that she were to testify against him. The trial court admitted evidence that the defendant and S were affiliated with gangs, and that A and her children had been relocated out of state multiple times after A gave her statement to the police. The court refused to permit defense counsel to introduce the letters into evidence, limited his inquiry into A's birth control practices and precluded him from cross- examining her about the termination of her employment. Held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence A's testimony that the defendant and S were affiliated with gangs or that she and her children were relocated after she gave her statement to the police: a. Evidence that the defendant and S were affiliated wi
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- passive voice clearly connoted third-party involvement when witness testified about Page 20 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL October 25, 2022 192 OCTOBER, 2022 345 Conn. 174 State v. Johnson ‘‘[being] relocated’’
- limiting purpose of admitted evidence quells potential for unfair prejudice
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Elgo; Moll; Devlin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-10-25· cited 24×
- State v. BermudezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-11-03· cited 23×
- State v. Adam P.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-02-11· cited 11×
- State v. HazardConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-10-27· cited 4×
- State v. EdwardsConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-01-26· cited 3×
- State v. LeniartConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-06-30· cited 2×
- State v. Robert B.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2020-10-06· cited 2×
- State v. BurnsConnecticut Appellate Court· 2026-03-24
Cites
45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1983-11-01· cited 2,703×
- United States v. DiFrancescoSupreme Court· 1980-12-09· cited 1,657×
- United States v. Mario Adamo, Richard Marsico, Terry Freeman, Raymond Ripley, Jeffrey Linkous, Ectore Garcia, and Winthrop HongSixth Circuit· 1984-08-22· cited 266×
- State v. StevensonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-06-15· cited 228×
- United States v. MartinoFifth Circuit· 1981-06-19· cited 225×
- United States v. DeitzSixth Circuit· 2009-08-20· cited 204×
- State v. VitaleSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-09-10· cited 160×
- State v. PeelerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-10-12· cited 157×
- United States v. CiampagliaFirst Circuit· 1980-08-04· cited 153×
- State v. PayneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-01-24· cited 144×
- Freeman v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1985-01-21· cited 116×
- State v. LusterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-08-15· cited 92×
- INF, Ltd. v. Spectro Alloys Corp.Supreme Court· 1990-06-25· cited 92×
- United States of America, at Nos. 89-5372/5383, at No. 89-5510 v. Gaetano Vastola, at No. 89-5372, at No. 89-5510 v. Elias Saka, at No. 89-5383Third Circuit· 1990-03-20· cited 83×
- State v. CalabreseSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-08-15· cited 72×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-31· cited 68×
- United States v. Vito Caliendo, Susan Barker, Salvatore Cataudella and Thomas StathasSeventh Circuit· 1990-08-13· cited 66×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-03-11· cited 65×
- State v. GrantSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-04-22· cited 63×
- State v. GonzalezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-01-25· cited 62×
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.