State v. Calderon-Perez
Citations
- 234 Conn. App. 228
Syllabus
Convicted, following a jury trial, of the crimes of assault in the second degree and breach of the peace in the second degree, the defendant appealed. He claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly excluded as irrelevant a uniform arrest report that included evidence of his physical appearance six months after the crime. Held: The trial court abused its discretion in excluding the uniform arrest report as irrelevant, as the central question before the jury was the identity of the perpetrator of the assault, it was vital to the defendant's theory of defense of mistaken identification that he be able to dispute the notion that he was the person depicted in a video of the perpetrator admitted into evidence, which necessarily involved a comparison of the appearance of the perpetra- tor in the video to that of the defendant, and the fact that the uniform arrest report was prepared six months after the assault was a matter concerning the weight of the evidence to be afforded by the jury, not its admissibility, and it did not diminish its relevance to the issue of the identity of the perpetrator. The trial court's erroneous exclusion of the uniform arrest report rose to the level of a constitutional violation of the defendant's right to present a defense, as the information pertaining to the defendant's appearance in the uniform arrest report was highly probative, material and potentially exculpatory, the record suggested that the excluded evidence was the most compelling evidence available to the defendant to establish his misidentifica- tion defense because it was the only evidence from an independent, objective party that the defendant could have offered at trial concerning his appear- ance closer to the time of the incident, the defendant took the steps necessary to exercise his right to present a defense, and nothing in the record indicated that there were other means by which the defendant was permitted to adequately present his misidentification defense. Th
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- harm resulting from court’s exclusion of evidence in violation of defendant’s consti- tutional right to present defense ‘‘could only have been compounded by’’ prosecutor’s improper remarks in closing argument about excluded evidence
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Alvord; Suarez; Seeley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court· 1976-06-24· cited 6,537×
- Crane v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-06-09· cited 2,651×
- Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court· 1987-02-24· cited 2,521×
- United States v. SchefferSupreme Court· 1998-03-31· cited 1,617×
- State v. VitaleSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-09-10· cited 160×
- State v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-10-11· cited 73×
- Thomas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1991-05-29· cited 69×
- State v. CerretaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-05-21· cited 67×
- Ellis v. EmeryNinth Circuit· 2006-03-20· cited 63×
- State v. HedgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-03· cited 62×
- State v. HubbardMissouri Court of Appeals· 1983-10-11· cited 47×
- State v. MorganConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-06-04· cited 46×
- State v. Fernando V.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-03-26· cited 38×
- Scrimo v. LeeSecond Circuit· 2019-08-20· cited 36×
- State v. OsimantiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-11-09· cited 35×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-10-10· cited 32×
- Hernon v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc.Supreme Court· 1974-10-15· cited 27×
- State of West Virginia v. Timothy C.West Virginia Supreme Court· 2016-06-03· cited 23×
- Belmar v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 2005-10-24· cited 22×
- State v. TorresConnecticut Appellate Court· 2004-05-11· cited 19×
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.