State v.Carey
Citations
- 337 Conn. 463
Syllabus
Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed. The defendant and the victim were in a relationship, which had deteriorated in the weeks preceding the victim's death. On the day of the shooting, the defendant drove to a motel at which the victim had been staying and, several hours later, shot the victim in his motel room. At trial, the defendant asserted a theory of self-defense, claiming that she and the victim had argued in the motel room, that the victim had a knife, and that she feared for her life and had no time to flee. The state called a witness, M, during its case on rebuttal in an attempt to show that the victim had been afraid 464 AUGUST, 2021 337 Conn. 463 State v. Carey of the defendant. Over defense counsel's objection, M testified that, a few weeks before the victim's death, he told M that he had crawled into the defendant's home through a window to retrieve some personal possessions, that the defendant put a gun to his head and threatened him, and that her threats frightened him. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding, inter alia, that, even if the trial court had improperly admitted M's testimony, its admission was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt. Thereafter, the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court cor- rectly concluded that any error relating to the admission of M's testimony was harmless, as the defendant failed to satisfy her burden of demonstra- ting that M's testimony substantially affected the jury's verdict: the incident that M recounted to the jury in her testimony was not the primary, or even a significant, basis for the case against the defendant, as the state introduced physical evidence that was inconsistent with the defendant's account of the shooting, evidence undercutting the defendant's claim that the victim had bee
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.