State v. Massaro

S

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JOHN A. MASSARO (AC 43323) Moll, Alexander and DiPentima, Js. Syllabus Convicted of the crime of the sale of a narcotic substance, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant sold crack cocaine to M, who testified about the drug sale at trial. Prior to trial, M was interviewed and gave a statement to a defense investigator, P, who provided a memorandum containing M’s statement to defense counsel. In her state- ment, M indicated that she had possessed narcotics prior to meeting with the defendant and that she provided narcotics to the defendant. The parties agreed prior to trial that the state would not present expert testimony from its witnesses regarding narcotics trafficking. During trial, it was discovered that defense counsel failed to timely disclose P’s memorandum. The trial court concluded that P’s memorandum was not protected attorney work product and should have been disclosed to the state pursuant to the relevant rule of practice (§ 40-15). The court imposed a sanction on the defense limiting P’s testimony and ruled that P’s memorandum would not come into evidence. The trial court ordered defense counsel to provide a redacted copy of the memorandum to the prosecutor and to make P available for subsequent questioning. Defense counsel called P as a witness, who testified that M provided narcotics to the defendant on the day of his arrest. Immediately following this testimony, the court provided the jury with a limiting instruction that the testimony was to be used only for the purpose of impeaching M’s prior inconsistent statement that she had purchased narcotics from the defendant. During his cross-examination of P, a former law enforcement officer, the prosecutor asked a series of questions regarding the sale and use of drugs. After P had answered these questions, defense counsel objected on the ground that the parties’ agreement did not permit opinion testimony regarding …

Original document

Add comment

By

Recent Posts

Recent Comments