State v. Rivera
Citations
- 335 Conn. 720
Syllabus
Convicted of breach of the peace in the second degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, and threatening in the second degree in connection with a confrontation involving C, a tow truck driver, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his rights to confrontation and to present a defense when it precluded him from cross-examining C about the facts underlying certain of C's prior convictions. In response to C's attempt to tow the defendant's vehicle from a fire lane at a condominium complex, the defendant confronted C, demanding to know why his vehicle was being towed. After the defendant opened the driver's door of his vehicle, C raised the vehicle off the ground to prevent the defendant from driving it off of the back of the tow truck. The defendant then retrieved a pipe from a nearby garage and used it to strike the tow truck. Thereafter, C, fearing that the defendant was going to hit him with the pipe, retrieved a can of Mace and sprayed it in the defendant's face. The defendant then took a knife out of his pocket, and C, fearing for his life, drove away in the tow truck. At trial, the defendant raised the defenses of self-defense and defense of property, arguing that C was attempting to steal the defendant's vehicle for his own financial benefit. The defendant was permitted to and did ask C about previously having been convicted of larceny. In response to the trial court's decision to preclude the defendant from cross-examining C about the specific facts underlying C's prior misdemeanor convictions of larceny and breach of the peace, the defendant claimed that this evidence would have served to impeach C by showing his character for untruthfulness and by establishing his motive, intent and interest in attempting to steal the defendant's vehicle to finance his drug habit and in lying about having sprayed the defendant with Mace in self-defense. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court did
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[w]e have consistently recognized that crimes involving larcenous intent imply a general disposition toward dishonesty or a tendency to make false statements’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- foundation may be established (1) by mak- ing offer of proof, (2) record independently may estab- lish relevance of proffered evidence, or (3) stating good faith belief that there is an adequate factual basis for inquiry
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. OrtizSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-14· cited 22×
- State v. BrandonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-12-30· cited 9×
- State v. TorresSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-05-10· cited 3×
- State v. James A.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-12-19· cited 1×
- State v. BesterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-12-09· cited 1×
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Robinson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 2,369×
- State v. GeislerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-06-18· cited 496×
- State v. JamesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-06-20· cited 120×
- State v. ColtonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-17· cited 112×
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-12· cited 86×
- Vogel v. SylvesterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1961-08-01· cited 75×
- State v. BarnesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-05-02· cited 74×
- State v. HedgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-03· cited 62×
- State v. AvisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-12-06· cited 60×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-24· cited 57×
- State v. NunesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-07-02· cited 56×
- American Bicycle Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1989-03-27· cited 52×
- State v. AskewSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-07-14· cited 37×
- State v. FelicianoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-06-19· cited 31×
- State v. ValentineSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-12-19· cited 30×
- Stenner v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 2007-10-01· cited 25×
- State v. IrvingConnecticut Appellate Court· 1992-04-07· cited 18×
- State v. StennerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-03-27· cited 17×
- State v. JaynesConnecticut Appellate Court· 1994-08-23· cited 17×
- State v. DobsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-02-04· cited 12×
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.