Skip to main content

State v. Lanier

Citations

  • 205 Conn. App. 586

Syllabus

Convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree in connection with a confrontation in the victim's apartment, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that his constitutional rights to confronta- tion and to present a defense were violated when the trial court pre- cluded him from cross-examining the victim about matters pertaining to the victim's bias against him and motive to falsify his claims to the police. The victim, the defendant and M had been at a bar when the defendant asked the victim if he could borrow twenty dollars. The victim gave the defendant the money and stated that he had other money at home for his rent. When the bar closed, the defendant invited the victim to his apartment, where he and M punched the victim and asked him about a watch he allegedly had stolen from M. The men then went to the victim's apartment, where the defendant took $400 and threatened to shoot the victim if he talked to the police. The state charged the defendant with six crimes, including burglary in the second degree by entering or remaining unlawfully in the victim's apartment with the intent to commit any, some or all of the underlying crimes of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, threatening in the second degree in violation of statute (§ 53a-62 (a) (1)) and larceny in the sixth degree. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to impeach the victim's credibility with evidence of his felony conviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, which had occurred prior to the incident with the defendant and M, and for which the victim was serving a sentence of probation both at the time of the incident with the defendant and M and at the time of trial. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that there would likely be testi- mony that the victim's conduct during the incident with the defendant and M violated the terms of the victim's probation, and that such evi- dence was releva

Judges: Bright; Moll; Bear

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

43 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.