State v. Williams

202 Conn.App. 355

245 A.3d 830

STATE of Connecticut

v.Diane WILLIAMS

AC 40953

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 10, 2020

Officially released January 26, 2021

Raymond L. Durelli, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Brett R. Aiello, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael A. Gailor, state's attorney, and Peter A. McShane, former state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Elgo, Cradle and Devlin, Js.

ELGO, J.

The defendant, Diane Williams, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122 (a). On appeal, the defendant challenges the propriety of various evidentiary rulings and the denial of her request to secure the attendance at trial of several out-of-state witnesses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The defendant was a finance director for the American Red Cross, Middlesex County chapter (chapter). She was hired by Brenda J. Simmons, who was the executive director of the chapter. The American Red Cross employed both hourly and salaried employees; the defendant's position as finance director was a salaried position. Unlike hourly employees, American Red Cross employees who were salaried were not entitled to overtime. As finance director, the defendant was responsible for reporting the chapter's finances to Simmons, which included payroll, accounts payable and receivable, as well as assisting Simmons in preparing budgets. From 2006 to 2010, the salary for the finance director position at the American Red Cross ranged from $49,000 to $57,000. The American Red Cross had a "use it or lose it" policy with regard to vacation time, pursuant to which employees would forfeit their unused vacation time if it was not used by March 1 of the following year.

As part of her payroll responsibilities, the defendant was required to fill out payroll information in an online data entry system and then report that information to Paychex, a payroll processing company. Paychex used that information to produce payroll checks and to make direct deposits into employees’ bank accounts. The defendant was the only chapter employee responsible for communicating with Paychex. When Paychex delivered the paychecks, the defendant personally received them. Simmons was not responsible for reviewing correspondence from Paychex. Additionally, the defendant was responsible for submitting "SPIN reports." SPIN is an online reporting system utilized by local chapters of the American Red Cross to report employee salaries and benefits to the national chapter of the American Red Cross (national). SPIN reports, thus, were intended to be an accurate reflection of what a person earned as an employee of the American Red Cross.

On June 30, 2010, the defendant's employment was terminated following the merger of several chapters of the American Red Cross, which eliminated the need for her position. At that time, Paula Lajoie, the chief financial officer for the Connecticut American Red Cross, took over the defendant's responsibilities. In 2011, while conducting a closeout audit of the chapter, Lajoie sought payroll information that had been maintained by the defendant. Despite searching the chapter's entire building, including the defendant's former office, Lajoie was unable to locate payroll records for the chapter's employees. That search raised other concerns for Lajoie, as she was unable to locate any of the payroll records that the defendant had been responsible for archiving. In addition, the defendant's work computer had been "wiped clean," and Lajoie was unable to find any of the defendant's human resource records. The defendant was uncooperative when questioned by Lajoie.

Thereafter, Lajoie obtained records from Paychex to review the defendant's compensation while employed with the American Red Cross. Lajoie discovered that the defendant's actual compensation was significantly greater than the $47,000 to $57,000 typical salary range for the position of finance director and the figures that the defendant had reported to the American Red Cross through internal SPIN reports.¹ The defendant's W-2 tax forms, which were admitted into evidence at trial, confirmed that the Paychex records accurately reflected how much the defendant had been paid by the American Red Cross. A comparison of the Paychex records to the internal SPIN reports submitted by the defendant revealed that the defendant had paid herself $409,647.47 more than she was entitled to.

On September 28, 2011, Detective Anthony Buglione, who was assigned to the state police Central District Major Crime Squad, and his partner, Detective Kevin A. Slonski, interviewed the defendant at her home regarding her inflated earnings. The defendant at that time agreed to provide an oral statement, which was transcribed by Buglione. After the interview was complete, the defendant signed Buglione's transcription of their conversation.² In that six page statement, the defendant admitted that she had embezzled money from the American Red Cross from 2006 to 2010. On the basis of that signed confession, the defendant was charged with larceny in the first degree in violation of § 53a-122 (a).³ Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of larceny in the first degree. The court rendered judgment accordingly, sentencing the defendant to a term of thirteen years of incarceration, execution suspended after eight years, and five years of probation. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendant raises sixteen claims of error, divided into three groupings: (1) whether the court improperly admitted her SPIN reports; (2) whether the court improperly sustained various evidentiary objections by the state; and (3) whether the court erred in its denial of her request to secure the attendance of several out-of-state witnesses.⁴

I

The defendant first claims that the court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence state's exhibit 7, a spreadsheet containing the defendant's SPIN reports that summarized her biweekly salary and payroll earnings from 2006 to 2010. We disagree.

"The standard for review of evidentiary rulings is well established." State v. Carpenter , 275 Conn. 785, 815, 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025, 126 S. Ct. 1578, 164 L. Ed. 2d 309 (2006). "[T]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility ... of evidence. ... The trial court's ruling on evidentiary matters will be overturned only upon a showing of a clear abuse of the court's discretion. ... We will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court's ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. ... Moreover, evidentiary rulings will be overturned on appeal only where there was an abuse of discretion and a showing by the defendant of substantial prejudice or injustice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez , 272 Conn. 515, 542, 864 A.2d 847 (2005).

The following additional facts are relevant to the defendant's evidentiary claim. At trial, the state sought to introduce into evidence the defendant's SPIN reports so that the jury could compare the figures that she had reported to national with her W-2 tax statements. That comparison would demonstrate that the defendant had received hundreds of thousands of dollars more in compensation than what she reported to national. To lay the appropriate foundation for this evidence, the state's attorney questioned Lajoie as follows:

"Q. Okay. ... [I]s that report kept in the ordinary course of business by the American Red Cross?

"A. Yes, it was.

"Q. And are those SPIN numbers or the numbers reflected there recorded at or about the time that someone receives a paycheck for benefit purposes?

"A. Yes. They were filed each pay period."

When the state attempted to offer the defendant's SPIN report into evidence, the defendant conducted a voir dire of Lajoie, in which Lajoie conceded that she did not know who prepared the SPIN reports. The court asked Lajoie if she prepared the document, and Lajoie confirmed that she did not. The court then sustained the defendant's objection but advised the state that it might be able to admit the report with additional foundation.

Later in its direct examination of Lajoie, the state again attempted to offer the SPIN reports into evidence. The court at that time heard arguments on the admissibility of the SPIN reports. During that exchange, defense counsel argued that "one of the problems is [that the SPIN reports contained in exhibit 7 do not] even have any indicia of reliability. It just ... doesn't even look like an official document. It has no Red Cross marking." In response, the court engaged in the following colloquy with Lajoie:

"Q. ... [A]s far as the salary of a Red Cross employee ... in the regular course of business, if you wanted to find out the salary of a Red Cross employee, you would go to national, and they would, basically, produce a SPIN report on that employee?

"A. Normally, you would go to a human resources file. We went to SPIN because that file was missing.

"Q. All right. But the SPIN accurately reflects the salary of a Red Cross employee?

"A. Yes.

"Q. All right. And you have observed ... many of these ... SPIN reports of Red Cross employees?

"A. Yes.

"Q. So, in the regular course of business for [national], they keep, if requested, SPIN reports on employees; correct?

"A. They did. They're not using the system now, so I just want to clarify.

"Q. But, back then?

"A. But, back when they did use that system ... yes.

"Q. You know, whether someone is a ... clerical worker or finance director ... you could find that out; correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And is that information provided by the employee to national? In other words, does [the defendant] submit that to national?

"A. It was done through finance. So,...