Skip to main content

State v. Ortiz

Citations

  • 343 Conn. 566

Syllabus

Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial impropriety during the state's rebuttal argument. The 343 Conn. 566 JUNE, 2022 567 State v. Ortiz victim and his friend, L, who had been using phencyclidine (PCP), drove to an area in Hartford to purchase more PCP. After L parked the car, the victim exited the car while L remained in the car, and the victim approached the defendant. The victim and the defendant engaged in discussion concerning drugs, after which the victim returned to the car. The defendant then approached the car, aimed a gun at the victim, and shot the victim through the front passenger window. L and two other individuals, I and R, the latter of whom was spending time and smoking PCP with the defendant at and around the time of the shooting, witnessed the events as they unfolded. L, I, and R each identified the defendant in a photographic array as the perpetrator. R thereafter provided a written statement to investigators and testimony to a grand jury implicat- ing the defendant in the murder. Prior to the defendant's trial, however, R indicated to defense counsel that she wanted to recant both her written statement and grand jury testimony. The state subsequently discovered that the defendant had sent text messages to R while he was incarcerated in an attempt to influence her testimony. Insofar as this evidence could have demonstrated the defendant's consciousness of guilt, both defense counsel and the state entered into an agreement pursuant to which the prosecutor, on direct examination of R, would question her about whom she was with and what she saw on the night of the murder but would not question her about her communications with the defendant while he was incarcerated. Pursuant further to that agreement, defense counsel would limit his cross-examination of

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 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.