State v. Dunbar

Citations

• 233 Conn. App. 297

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been on probation in connection with his convic- tions, in two separate criminal dockets, of larceny in the second degree and sexual assault in the second degree, appealed to this court from the judg- ments of the trial court revoking his probation and imposing an effective sentence of seven years of incarceration. He claimed, inter alia, that the court violated his constitutional due process right to cross-examine adverse witnesses by failing to engage in a balancing analysis pursuant to State v. Shakir (130 Conn. App. 458) before admitting certain hearsay evidence. Held: The trial court's finding that the defendant violated his probation in the sexual assault case was not based on his discharge from a certain sex offender treatment program and, thus, the defendant's claim that the court violated his constitutional right to due process by admitting certain evidence concerning his discharge from that program failed. The trial court, having properly admitted into evidence, under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay, a discharge report from a domestic violence program that the defendant was required to attend as a special condition of his probation in the larceny case was not required, under Shakir, to balance the defendant's interest in cross-examination against the state's good cause for denying the right to cross-examination prior to admitting the report into evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant's probation in each case, as the record demonstrated that the court properly considered the beneficial purposes of probation and balanced the defen- dant's interests in liberty and rehabilitation against the need to protect the public in rendering its judgments. Argued February 10—officially released June 24, 2025