State v. Bullock

155 Conn.App. 1

107 A.3d 503

STATE of Connecticut

v.Robert D. BULLOCK.

No. 35006.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Sept. 16, 2014.

Decided Jan. 20, 2015.

James B. Streeto, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was John C. Smriga, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

BEACH, KELLER and PRESCOTT, Js.

Opinion

KELLER, J.

The defendant, Robert D. Bullock, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–59 (a)(1) and 53a–49, carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29–35(a), and reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–63 (a).¹ The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) declined to deliver a jury instruction pertaining to the fallibility of eyewitness identification evidence, (2) permitted the state to introduce prior misconduct evidence and denied his motion for a mistrial related to such evidence, (3) permitted the prosecutor to question him concerning a certain statement that he allegedly made, and (4) instructed the jury with regard to the element of intent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. At or about 5 p.m., on September 24, 2010, Sergeant Greg Granello of the Bridgeport Police Department was operating a marked police cruiser in the vicinity of the Stratford Avenue Bridge in Bridgeport. At that time, he observed and decided to stop two males, the defendant and Daquan Long, as part of his investigation of a shooting that occurred nearby a short time earlier. Granello advised the police dispatcher of his whereabouts and his intent to stop these two men.

Granello observed the defendant, who was wearing a red shirt, and Long, who was wearing all black clothing, riding on bicycles across the bridge. He parked his police cruiser in such a manner as to block their travel off the bridge, got out of his cruiser, and ordered the defendant and Long, who were positioned behind his police cruiser, to stop and show their hands. Bridgeport police Officers Jason Ferri and Mark Blackwell also were present at this time. Ferri and Blackwell parked their police cruisers behind that of Granello. The defendant and Long disregarded Granello's repeated commands as they stood on the bridge while straddling their bicycles and facing Granello. The defendant, who may have been as close as fifteen feet from Granello, raised a black handgun and fired several shots at Granello.² Granello took cover near the front of his cruiser on the driver's side before he returned gunfire in the defendant's direction. Long, who was standing in close proximity to the defendant, brandished a black and silver handgun and fired several shots at Ferri. Ferri returned fire and took cover briefly. The hood and front windshield of Granello's police cruiser sustained bullet damage, likely caused when Granello fired upon the defendant. The rear license plate and rear window sustained damage from bullets that were fired from behind the vehicle.

After the brief exchange of gunfire came to an end, the police officers at the scene observed the defendant and Long lying in opposite directions near one another on the sidewalk portion of the bridge, where they initially had been stopped by Granello. Both men had discarded their handguns, which were later recovered by the police, into the Pequonnock River, which flows under the bridge. The defendant and Long were handcuffed and taken into police custody.

In connection with the events that had transpired on the bridge, the defendant was arrested, tried, and convicted of attempt to commit assault in the first degree, carrying a pistol without a permit and reckless endangerment in the first degree. The present appeal followed. Additional facts will be discussed as they become relevant to our analysis of the claims raised in this appeal.

I

First, the defendant claims that the court improperly declined to deliver a jury instruction pertaining to the fallibility of eyewitness identification evidence. We disagree.

The state presented the testimony of four witnesses who observed the defendant's conduct on the bridge at the time of the shooting: Granello, Ferri, Blackwell and Christine Vitka. We begin our review of the defendant's claim of instructional error with a review of the relevant aspects of the testimony of these witnesses. Granello testified in relevant part that he observed two black males as they attempted to cross the bridge on their bicycles. He stated that he continued to observe the two individuals after he exited his police cruiser and continued to observe them when he ordered them to stop and show their hands. He testified that they did not comply, and that the individual who was closer to him and wearing a red shirt reached behind his back, brandished a handgun, and fired the gun in his direction. Granello testified that he observed the handgun before he dove to the ground and returned fire. He stated that he fired at the shooter wearing the red shirt until such time as the shooter dropped to the ground behind a small concrete barrier on the bridge. Granello then positioned himself where he could observe both individuals and found that they were lying down in a prone position on the sidewalk. Granello described the other individual who was with the shooter in the red shirt as being dressed in “all black....” During his testimony, Granello stated that he could identify the person who was wearing the red shirt and who fired in his direction on the bridge. Then, Granello identified the defendant as the shooter.

Granello testified that both individuals were approximately the same size and that they were standing close to each other during the shooting. Also, he stated that the difference in the clothing worn by the individuals, with one individual wearing all black clothing and the other individual wearing a red shirt, was an important distinction. Although, prior to the shooting, Granello observed the defendant's torso, he stated that he was looking intently at the defendant's hands and for other gestures that could indicate danger. Granello testified that he observed the firearm used by the defendant “[a]lmost head on” and that he saw it discharge twice before he took cover. At the time of the shooting, Granello was approximately twenty-five to thirty-five feet from the defendant. Granello testified that, at that time, he was focused on the defendant and that he did not know whether the other individual on the bridge fired at him. He testified that after he took cover, he “lost all sight” for a couple of seconds while he heard the sound of gunfire. Granello testified that, after he took cover, he managed once again to observe the defendant, who was still standing in the same position. Granello then returned fire, discharging between five to seven gunshots. Granello testified that the exchange of gunfire lasted for less than one minute and that, within fifteen seconds after the last shot was fired, he approached the individuals who were then lying face down on the sidewalk. When asked to describe the shooting event, Granello testified that it possibly could be described as a frantic event, but that it was not chaotic.

During his cross-examination, Granello testified that after the incident on September 24, 2010, until the date of his testimony, he had not observed the defendant. Also, Granello testified that he was never asked to identify the defendant in a photographic array. The following colloquy between the defendant's attorney and Granello then occurred:

“Q. So, you ... were never shown the photo array by any members of the detective bureau or any superior officers in an effort to determine who had shot at you on the bridge?

“A. No.

“Q. The entire basis for you saying who had shot at you on the bridge is by linking it to the red shirt, is that correct?

“A. Yes; on scene, yeah.

“Q. Right, because you didn't recognize the face of the person in the red shirt, did you?

“A. Recognize when?

“Q. At the scene at that moment when the events occurred, you did not recognize the face of the person in the red shirt, did you?

“A. I saw, I don't remember it.

“Q. Right. You ... saw it, but it was a face you had not seen before, correct?

“A. Correct....

“Q. How is it then, officer, that nearly two years after the events you're able to say that the young man who shot on the bridge is this young man right here?

“A. I knew the name of the individual.

“Q. But did you know the name on September 24th?

“A. After the fact; yes.

“Q. After the fact?

“A. Yes.

“Q. Somebody in the police department gave you the name of the person in the red shirt?

“A. Yes.... I pointed him out, let everyone know that's the individual who shot at me, and they identified him for me, gave me his name.

“Q. And so by way of the fact that you've been called as a witness in this case and you know this case is the state of Connecticut versus Robert Bullock, you therefore conclude that the person who shot at you must be the person at counsel table?

“A. Yes.

“Q. Has nothing to do with the face of the man, does it?

“A. No.”

Thereafter, Granello testified that he was taken to a hospital from the shooting scene, at which time he was suffering from stress and anxiety. He testified that he felt like his heart was racing, he felt light-headed and he felt slightly dizzy. He testified that he did not experience confusion following the shooting and that at no time following the shooting did he experience any memory loss concerning the events that occurred at the scene of the shooting. Granello testified that he had not been involved in a shooting incident prior to the events of September 24, 2010. On redirect examination, Granello testified that he was positive that the man lying on the ground...