Argued
September 23, 2019
Page 835
Substitute information charging the defendant with the crime
of murder, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Stamford and tried to the jury before Blawie, J.;
verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant
appealed.
COUNSEL:
Norman
A. Pattis, with whom, on the brief, was Kevin Smith, for the
appellant (defendant).
Ronald
G. Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom,
on the brief, were Richard J. Colangelo, Jr., state's
attorney, and James Bernardi, supervisory assistant
state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Judges: Lavine, Devlin and Beach, Js. BEACH, J. In this
opinion the other judges concurred.
OPINION
Page 836
[195
Conn.App. 156] BEACH, J.
The
defendant, Shota Mekoshvili, appeals from the judgment of
conviction, rendered on a jury verdict of murder in violation
of General Statutes § 53a-54a. He claims that the trial court
erred by (1) admitting testimony under the state of mind
exception to the hearsay rule, (2) admitting testimony
regarding the victim's habit, and (3) refusing to include
in the jury instructions a unanimity charge as to whether the
state had disproven an element of the defendant's
self-defense claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
The
following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found
from the evidence presented and the reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom, and procedural history are relevant on
appeal. The victim, Mohammed Kamal, operated a taxi with his
business partner, Jean Antoine. Antoine worked the day shift,
generally from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and the victim worked the
night shift, generally from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. The cab was
registered with Stamford Taxi (company), and the partners
paid a weekly fee totaling $475 to the company. The fee was
due on Wednesdays at noon. The victim customarily placed his
share of the fee in the glove compartment of the vehicle
during his Tuesday night shift, and Antoine removed the money
and delivered it to the company on Wednesday mornings.
On the
evening of Tuesday, August 26, 2014, the victim left home for
his shift in the taxi between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. At
approximately 12:30 a.m. on August 27, the victim briefly
returned home and told his wife that he had forgotten to take
the money for his share of the fee that he needed to leave in
the taxi; he said he also [195 Conn.App. 157] planned to send
some money to his family
Page 837
in Bangladesh. The victim's wife observed him take money
out of an armoire, after which the victim returned to his
shift. At approximately 3 a.m., the defendant hailed the
victim's taxi and directed the victim to drive to
Doolittle Road, in Stamford. While on Doolittle Road, the
defendant began to stab the victim repeatedly. At some point,
the defendant opened the glove compartment, stole the money
that the victim had set aside for the taxi fee and for his
family in Bangladesh, took the victim's credit card, and
fled the scene toward the defendant's apartment.
While
fleeing from the scene, the defendant called a friend, Eugene
Goldshtyen, several times and offered Goldshtyen $100 to pick
him up. Goldshtyen met the defendant at the defendant's
apartment and asked whether the defendant received his
injuries during a burglary. The defendant falsely replied
''yeah'' and explained that he encountered
the homeowner during the burglary and started fighting with
the homeowner, whom he stabbed multiple times. The defendant
said that ''[w]hen the homeowner 'kept
yelling' despite the defendant's order to 'shut
up,' the defendant 'just kept stabbing him and
stabbing him.' '' Not believing the
defendant's story, Goldshtyen called the police.
Later
that morning, Stamford Police located the victim's body
and the taxi at 150 Doolittle Road. The victim's body was
found on the ground, and an autopsy revealed that the victim
had been stabbed 127 times. The taxi's glove compartment
was open and no money was found inside. The victim's and
the defendant's blood was found on the rear driver's
side passenger seat and door. The police arrested the
defendant and charged him with murder in violation of §
53a-54a. The money, which the state claimed had been stolen,
was not recovered.
[195
Conn.App. 158] Prior to trial, the state filed a motion in
limine seeking to introduce the testimony of two witnesses:
(1) testimony from the victim's wife that when the victim
returned home briefly from his shift at 12:30 a.m., she saw
him retrieve money from the armoire, and the victim then told
her that ''he intended to use this money to pay his
dispatch fees and to send money home to Bangladesh'';
and (2) testimony from the victim's taxi partner,
Antoine, that it ''was [the victim's] habit and
custom to leave his share [of the taxi fee] in the glove
...