Connecticut Criminal Lawyer Blog

A prosecutor's improper appeal to the emotions of the jury regarding the sexual assault of a teenager did not deprive the Defendant, a Roman Catholic seminarian, of a fair trial. Leonardo Montoya was a Roman Catholic seminarian in Columbia who came to the U.S. to continue his religious studies. He became friendly with 16 year old T's family. Montoya attended a party for T's father. After dinner, T went upstairs while the adults remained downstairs drinking Columbian liquor. Around 1 a.m. Montoya entered T's room and woke her pulling at her sheets and telling her she had pretty eyes.

T yelled at Montoya who smelled of alcohol and pushed him out the door. She awoke at about 5:45 a.m. and noticed Montoya was asleep in the other bed in the room. She went back to sleep. She later awoke and saw a man standing over her bed. She thought it was her father and pulled the covers over her again. She felt the comforter move and a tingling sensation on her thigh. She felt her vagina being rubbed from behind. T realized that Montoya was touching her. She ran to her father and stepmother's room yelling about it. T's father ordered Montoya out of the house. T became suicidal, was hospitalized and was still taking antidepressants at trial. She had no prior history of such episodes. Montoya was convicted following a jury trial of sexual asault in the fourth degree. The Appellate Court affirmed. Sufficient evidence supported the conviction. The state met its burden of establishing that T was sexually assaulted.

Montoya's claim was rejected that because T did not actually see him touching her, the state failed to prove that he was the perpetrator. The jury was free to draw the reasonable inference from the evidence, in light of the Defendant's earlier conduct toward T, that it was he who had sexually assaulted her. The prosecutor improperly appealed to the emotions of the jury during closing argument regarding the victim losing trust, happiness, innocence, peace and "all to this man". Even though the prosecutor's statements were grounded in the evidence, her language invoked overly sympathetic images of the victim. However, the Defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial. Defense counsel did not object to the remarks when made, the comments were not central to a critical issue and the court's general instructions minimized harm.

State v. Montoya
Connecticut Appellate Court
AC 28164

Posted by Nicholas Adamucci | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

The owner of a building in Hartford had a standing complaint with police to investigate unauthorized activity on his property. On January 28, 2006, officers responded to information received about narcotics activity occurring on the property. They saw a van in the driveway with the engine running and the lights off. They blocked the driveway with their cruiser and approached. The driver, Cameron Mounds, acted nervously and made furtive movements with his hand toward his waist. He did not respond to questions about why he was there. He failed to comply with repeated requests to show his hands.

Mounds refused to get out of the van and began flailing his arms as the officers arrested him for interfering with an officer and criminal trespass in the third degree. The officers found ten small bags filled with a white rock like substance in his waistband and $605 in small bills. He moved to suppress the items seized asserting that the evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal warrantless arrest and that the subsquent warrantless search of his person and automobile lacked probable cause.

The trial court denied the motion and Mounds was convicted. The appellate court affirmed. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. The defendant's challenge to a factual determination lacked merit. The trial court was free to credit the officer's testimony that he could see the building's signs. Under the facts, the trial court properly determined that the officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant was trespassing when they blocked the driveway.

They were justified in proceeding with an investigatory stop of the vehicle. Because there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for interfering with an officer, the search incident to the arrest was valid. The defendant waived his claim that the state used peremptory challenges to strike two African-American venire persons in a discriminatory manner in violation of the 1986 United States Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky by failing to contest the trial court's acceptance of the prosecutor's explanations.

State v. Mounds
Connecticut Appellate Court
AC 28126

Posted by Nicholas Adamucci | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark: