State v. Espinal

208 Conn.App. 369

264 A.3d 1003

STATE of Connecticut

v.Tony ESPINAL

AC 41554

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 5, 2021

Officially released November 2, 2021

Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T. Corradino, state's attorney, and C. Robert Satti, Jr., supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Alvord, Cradle and Suarez, Js.

SUAREZ, J.

The defendant, Tony Espinal, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-56 (a) (1).¹ The defendant claims that (1) the trial court deprived him of his due process rights to present a defense and to a fair trial by precluding him from introducing evidence that was vital to his defense, (2) the court committed error with respect to its jury instructions concerning the defense of self-defense, and (3) this court, in the exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration of justice, should require trial courts, in cases in which self-defense is asserted as a defense, to instruct juries to consider the defense prior to considering whether the defendant is guilty of the charged offense and any lesser included offenses. 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. On December 18, 2014, the defendant was living in Bridgeport with his parents and his girlfriend at that time, Nefertiti Green. That day, the defendant worked from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. at a restaurant. The defendant then worked at his second job, from 4 to 11 p.m., at a different restaurant that was located in Trumbull. Between approximately 10 and 11 p.m., the defendant, while at the restaurant, consumed two beers with some of his coworkers. By the time the defendant left the restaurant at approximately 11 p.m., he felt as though he had been through "a very tough day," he was tired, and he wanted to get home.

In the parking lot of the restaurant, the defendant got into his automobile, which was registered to Green. He called Green on his cell phone to let her know that he was on his way home. The defendant continued his conversation with Green as he drove away from the restaurant and proceeded along Route 25, a multilane state highway, toward Bridgeport.

As the defendant approached southbound exit 5 of Route 25, he and the victim, Bryant Kelly, were involved in a minor automobile collision. Thereafter, on exit 5, both drivers stopped their automobiles within several feet of each other. Before the defendant exited his automobile, he concealed a Swiss Army type knife in the pocket of his pants. Once they had exited their automobiles, the defendant and the victim began cursing and shouting at one another, and their encounter quickly escalated into a physical altercation. At no point did the victim display a weapon. The defendant reached into his pocket, opened his knife with his thumb, and used it to inflict multiple injuries to the victim. These injuries included multiple superficial wounds on the victim's arm, as well as a fatal wound that resulted from the defendant stabbing the victim in the left chest, thereby piercing the victim's left lung cavity, a major coronary artery, and his heart. Then, the defendant got back into his automobile and drove away from the scene.

At some point during his encounter with the victim on the exit ramp, the defendant ended his phone conversation with Green and used his cell phone to call 911. Although the defendant was connected to the 911 dispatcher for several minutes during his encounter with the victim, he did not explain his situation to the dispatcher until after he had driven away from the exit ramp. He informed the dispatcher that he would stop and wait for the police at the intersection of Lindley Street and Salem Street in Bridgeport. After the defendant ended his initial conversation with the dispatcher but before the police arrived, he concealed his knife under a spare tire in the trunk of his automobile. For approximately twenty minutes, the defendant waited for the police to arrive. As the defendant did so, he called 911 a second time and was speaking with a 911 dispatcher when the police arrived.

During the course of his two conversations with a 911 dispatcher, the defendant did not state that he had been in fear for his life or that he had used a knife during his encounter with the victim. When the police, including Trooper Edmund Vayan of the state police, arrived at the defendant's location at the intersection of Lindley Street and Salem Street, they spoke with the defendant. Vayan noticed that the defendant was outside of his automobile holding a cell phone in his left hand. He also observed blood on the defendant's right hand. Despite the fact that the defendant saw the police searching his automobile, he did not immediately inform the police about the knife he had concealed in the trunk. Later, when Vayan asked the defendant if there was a knife in his automobile, he hesitated before responding that there was a knife in his trunk. The police later recovered the knife. The defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the state police Troop G barracks in Bridgeport, where he was advised of his rights. Thereafter, the police interviewed him for several hours and obtained a written statement from him.

At trial, the defendant asserted that he had acted in self-defense. The defendant testified that, while he and the victim were operating separate automobiles in the southbound lanes of Route 25, prior to reaching exit 5, the victim passed him on his right side and "clipped" his front bumper. Once the victim's automobile was in front of the defendant's automobile, the defendant flashed his headlamps. Thereafter, the victim and the defendant were driving side-by-side in the southbound lanes. The victim began yelling and gesturing at the defendant. Then, the victim drove his automobile such that it was directly in front of the defendant's automobile, and the victim then slammed on his brakes, causing another minor collision with the defendant. Both drivers stopped their automobiles on exit 5. The victim, who was larger than the defendant, exited his automobile and approached the defendant. Because the victim was angry, cursing, and yelling, the defendant put a knife in his pocket. The defendant, while still talking to Green on his cell phone, exited his automobile, and he began to inspect the damage to the automobile when the victim pushed him. The defendant told the victim not to touch him, and he used his cell phone to take a photograph of the victim's license plate. The victim pushed him onto the hood of the defendant's automobile. At this point, the defendant called 911.

The defendant testified that, after the victim pushed him this second time, he got up and told the victim "not to put your hands on me, not to touch me." The victim and the defendant exchanged insults, and the victim told the defendant, "I'm in your face. Put your hands up so I can knock you out." The victim and the defendant continued to yell at each other. The victim turned as though he was going to leave but then surprised the defendant by punching him in the jaw. The victim then started pushing the defendant even more, grabbing his sweatshirt and, in the defendant's words, "throwing [him] around." The defendant testified that, as other drivers were passing them on the exit ramp, he believed that the victim was either trying to throw him on the ground or into oncoming traffic. The defendant screamed, "let me go," several times, but the victim would not comply. Fearing for his life, the defendant reached into his pocket with his right hand and brandished his knife.

According to the defendant, he swung the knife twice "on [the victim's] shoulder" while intending to cause the victim to let go of him. The defendant testified that he did not know if he struck the victim with the knife, but it was possible that it may have made contact with the victim's arm. The defendant also testified that, although he made a "short swing" with the knife in the direction of the victim's shoulder, at no point did he push the knife straight at the victim's body. The defendant testified that he "never stabbed [the victim] in the chest."

The defendant testified that, after he used the knife, the victim released him and stated, "you have a knife, I'll show you what I have in my car." As the victim turned and walked toward his automobile, the defendant got into his automobile, drove around the victim's automobile, and proceeded to the intersection of Lindley Street and Salem Street, where he waited for the police. The defendant called 911 during his encounter with the victim on the exit ramp, and he had his cell phone in his left hand during a portion of his encounter with the victim. It was not until the defendant drove away from the victim, however, that he was able to converse with the 911 dispatcher. The defendant testified that, while he was waiting for the police to arrive, he opened the trunk, and "threw [the knife] in there [and] closed the trunk." Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

First, the defendant claims that, in three instances, the court deprived him of his due process rights to present a defense and to a fair trial by precluding him from introducing evidence that was vital to his defense. He claims that the court improperly precluded him from introducing evidence that was highly relevant to his claim of self-defense, including (1) evidence that, at the time of the encounter, the victim had an active rearrest warrant for motor vehicle violations and was driving while his right to operate a motor vehicle was suspended, (2) a recording of a phone call that the defendant made to 911 within minutes after his encounter with the...