Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment upholding the defendant’s convictions for first-degree assault and carrying a pistol without a permit. The court held that evidence of the defendant’s failure to contact his cousin after arrest was admissible to assess credibility and did not violate his right to silence. It also held that disclosure of counsel’s instruction not to discuss the case did not warrant a mistrial, particularly because the trial court gave curative jury instructions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based on the admission of evidence that the defendant failed to contact his cousin after arrest.
- Whether the defendant's disclosure that counsel advised him not to contact his cousin violated the attorney-client privilege or otherwise required a mistrial.
- Whether the state was required to establish the foundation for questioning the defendant about his failure to contact the cousin outside the jury's presence.
Holdings
- The evidence was admissible for credibility and impeachment purposes and did not improperly use the defendant's custodial silence as an adoptive admission or otherwise violate the defendant's right to remain silent. The trial court therefore properly denied the motion for a mistrial.
- The defendant's voluntary disclosure of the substance of counsel's instruction waived any attorney-client privilege as to that communication, so admission of the disclosure did not violate the privilege.
- No separate hearing outside the jury's presence was required under these circumstances. The state established a sufficient foundation, and the trial court's curative instructions further supported denial of the mistrial.
Key quotations
“The decision whether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (418)
“It is well recognized that the rule against self-incrimination applies to testimonial or communicative acts and not to conduct that is noncommunicative in nature.” (422)
“In the absence of a prejudicial question such as in Correa, or an adoptive admission; see id., 351 n.20; such a requirement would unnecessarily impede a trial.” (424)
Factual background
After an altercation outside the Dunbar Cafe in New Haven, Ernest Herold was shot in the head and seriously wounded. The defendant, William Taft, fled the scene with his cousin Andre Provite and later fled Connecticut; he was apprehended in Missouri. At trial, Provite testified for the defense but was impeached with a prior statement identifying Taft as the shooter, while Taft testified that an unidentified person shot Herold. During cross-examination and redirect examination, the jury heard that Taft had not contacted Provite after his arrest and that his attorney had instructed him not to discuss the case with Provite or anyone else.
Procedural history
The trial court entered judgment of conviction after a jury trial and denied the defendant's motions for a mistrial and to strike testimony. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted certification on the mistrial issue and affirmed the Appellate Court.