Skip to main content

State v. Marcello E.

Citations

  • 351 Conn. 345

Syllabus

The defendant appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed his conviction of assault in the first degree in connection with the stabbing of the victim. The defendant claimed that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of two instances of prior misconduct, during which the defendant physically assaulted the victim by punching her in the face, for the purpose of establishing his specific intent to cause serious bodily injury in connection with the charged offense. Held: Contrary to the Appellate Court's determination, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the prior misconduct evidence, and, because the admission of that evidence was harmful, this court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment, and the case was remanded for a new trial. Even if this court assumed that the prior misconduct evidence was relevant to prove that the defendant had the specific intent to cause serious bodily injury, the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh its prejudi- cial effect. The key issue at trial was the identity of the person who had stabbed the victim and not whether the assailant had the requisite intent, the probative value of the prior misconduct evidence with respect to the issue of intent was diminished insofar as intent had already been proven by extensive documentary and testimonial evidence demonstrating the nature of the crime, and the admission of the prior misconduct evidence was unduly prejudicial because it presupposed the defendant's identity as the victim's assailant or his propensity to commit the charged offense. In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims in cases involving family violence, we decline to use the defendant's full name or to identify the victim or others through whom the victim's identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e. Moreover, in a

Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.