Skip to main content
· 11/2/2021

State v. Espinal

Citations

  • 208 Conn. App. 369

Syllabus

Convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the second degree as a result of the stabbing death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that he was deprived of his right to present a defense when the trial court precluded certain evidence he claimed was vital to his defense of self-defense. The defendant had stabbed the victim during an altercation on a highway exit ramp after the automobiles they were driving had collided. The defendant called 911 on his cell phone during the altercation but did not explain his situation to the dispatcher until he made a second 911 call after he was able to leave the victim and drive to another location. The trial court precluded the defendant from introducing evidence that, at the time of the altercation, a rearrest warrant had been issued for the victim in connection with pending motor vehicle violations against him. The defendant claimed that the victim was the initial aggressor and was motivated to attack him because he thought the defendant was talking on the cell phone to the police during the altercation and wanted to avoid an encounter with the police. The trial court also precluded the defendant from introducing into evi- dence as spontaneous utterances under § 8-3 (2) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence statements he made in his second 911 call and in a videotaped interview with the police when they told him that the victim had died. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claims that the trial court incor- rectly determined that evidence of the victim's rearrest warrant was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and that his second 911 call and por- tions of his interview with the police did not constitute spontaneous utterances under § 8-3 (2): a. The rearrest warrant and evidence of the victim's prior motor vehicle violations did not have a logical tendency to support a finding by the jury, as the defendant claimed, that the victim had a motive to be the initial aggressor, as it was

Judges: Alvord; Cradle; Suarez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.