Argued
September 23, 2019
Procedural
History
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. Affirmed.
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).
Lavine, Devlin and Beach, Js.
OPINION
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 planned to send some money to his
family 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.
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
compartment'' for Antoine to give to the company the
next morning. The trial court held a hearing on the matter
and subsequently admitted the testimony of both witnesses.
The
jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of
murder in violation of § 53a-54a. Thereafter, the court
imposed a total effective sentence of sixty years of
incarceration. The defendant filed an appeal in our Supreme
Court, and the appeal was transferred to this court on
September 24, 2018.
‘‘Our
standard of review for evidentiary matters allows the trial
court great leeway in deciding the admissibility of evidence.
The trial court has wide discretion in its rulings on
evidence and its rulings will be reversed only if the court
has abused its discretion or an injustice appears to have
been done. . . . The exercise of such discretion is not to be
disturbed unless it has been abused or the error is clear and
involves a misconception of the law.'' (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) State v. Russo, 62
Conn.App. 129, 133, 773 A.2d 965 (2001). In reviewing for an
abuse of ...