*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MARCOS A. VELAZQUEZ (AC 40224) Alvord, Bright and Bear, Js. Syllabus Convicted, following a bench trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction and that the trial court improperly admitted certain testimony of a police officer. The defendant had been involved in an accident in which the investigating police officers determined that he had been the operator of the motor vehicle that collided with two other vehicles. At trial, during the state’s direct examination of D, a police officer who responded to the scene of the accident, D testified that he smelled the odor of marijuana in the defendant’s car but he did not smell the odor of marijuana on the defendant’s person. Following D’s testimony, defense counsel, claiming that the state committed a discovery violation because it had not disclosed that D would testify about the odor of marijuana, moved for a mistrial and a dismissal of the charge. The trial court denied defense counsel’s motions and found the defendant guilty. Held: 1. This court concluded, on the basis of the evidence presented at trial and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of operating a motor vehicle while under the influ- ence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, specifically, marijuana or Gabapen- tin, or both: the defendant did not dispute that he was operating a motor vehicle on a public road at the time of the accident, and the state elicited testimony from the investigating police officers that the defendant failed three field sobriety tests, that he was stumbling around and slow to respond to questions and directions, appeared dazed and confused, appeared unaware that he had been …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
New User Registration
*Required field