State v. Bard

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed Kevin Bard’s convictions for murder and violations of protective orders. The court held that Bard’s claim concerning the trial court’s authority to order severance sua sponte was unpreserved because he had not moved for severance at trial, and that a motion for articulation could not preserve the issue. The court further concluded that, even if preserved, the claim lacked merit because the offenses were of the same character and the evidence would have been cross-admissible.

Holdings

1. Because the defendant did not move for severance in the trial court, his claim that the court abused its discretion by failing to recognize its authority to order severance sua sponte was unpreserved and not reviewable. A posttrial motion for articulation could not preserve an issue that had not been raised at trial.
2. Even if the claim had been preserved, the defendant failed to show error. The trial court understood that Practice Book § 41-18 authorized it to order severance on its own motion, but reasonably declined to do so because the offenses were of the same character, evidence of each would have been cross admissible at a separate trial, and the joint trial was not substantially prejudicial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bard's failure to move for severance in the trial court rendered unreviewable his claim that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize its sua sponte authority under Practice Book § 41-18 to sever the murder and protective-order violation charges.
2. Whether, even if preserved, the record demonstrated that the trial court misunderstood its authority to order severance sua sponte or improperly declined to sever the charges.

Disposition

affirmed