Skip to main content

State v. Bermudez

Citations

  • 341 Conn. 233

Syllabus

Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of felony murder, the defendant appealed. The defendant and his brothers, S and B, had robbed the victim as he returned home at night after closing the bar he owned, during or after which the victim was shot and killed. Twelve years after the incident, A, the estranged wife of S, provided a written statement to the police that implicated the defendant and his brothers in the victim's death. A, who knew that the defendant and his brothers were affiliated with gangs, delayed providing information to the police, pur- portedly out of fear that the defendant and his brothers would retaliate against her or her family. S had regularly abused A throughout their marriage and, following the victim's murder, had threatened to kill her, their children, and A's mother. While the defendant was incarcerated on unrelated charges during the twelve years after the shooting, he instructed A to write salacious letters to him so that he could discredit her if she were to testify against him. At trial, A's testimony was crucial to the state's case, and, therefore, the reason for her twelve year delay in coming forward and the credibility of her statement inculpating the defendant and his brothers were central issues. In affirming the defen- dant's conviction, the Appellate Court rejected the defendant's claim that the trial court had improperly admitted evidence that he and his brothers were affiliated with gangs and that A and her children had been relocated by the state following her statement to the police. The Appellate Court also rejected the defendant's claim that his constitu- tional rights to present a defense and to confront the witnesses against him was violated insofar as the trial court declined to admit into evidence the letters that A had sent to the defendant and precluded defense counsel from questioning A about the circumstances surrounding the termination of her employment from a hospital and her birth control practices. On th

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

44 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.