State v. Reed
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. 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 electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and 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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. VAUGHN LEE REED (AC 19294) Lavery, C. J., and Schaller and Dupont, Js. Submitted on briefs November 2 officially released December 12, 2000 Counsel Mary Anne Royle, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (defendant). James E. Thomas, state s attorney, and Christopher T. Godialis and Thomas J. O Brien, assistant state s attorneys, filed a brief for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Vaughn Lee Reed, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of prostitution in violation of General Statutes ยง 53a-82 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly charged the jury on the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. With regard to the presumption of innocence, the defendant claims that the court improperly charged that the law is made to protect society and persons whose guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and not to protect persons proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant failed to object to the challenged instruction at trial and now seeks review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239 40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989).1 We will review this claim because the record is adequate and the claim of instructional error regarding the burden of proof and presumption of innocence is constitutional in nature. See State v. Legrande, 60 Conn. App. 408, 423 n.12, 759 A.2d 1027 (2000). In State v. Legrande, supra, 60 Conn. App. 423 24, we upheld the court s charge to the jury that the law is made to protect society and persons whose guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and not to protect those whose guilt has been so established. We concluded in Legrande that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the challenged language. We conclude, on the basis of the foregoing, that the defendant in this case was not deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court s charge on the presumption of innocence. See id., 424; see also State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280, 308 11, 750 A.2d 1059 (2000); State v. Watson, 251 Conn. 220, 225 28, 740 A.2d 832 (1999). With regard to reasonable doubt, the defendant claims that the court improperly charged that a reasonable doubt is a real doubt, an honest doubt. The defendant did not object to the challenged language at trial and now seeks review under State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 40. Although the record is adequate for review of the defendant s claimed constitutional violation, he cannot prevail because he has not demonstrated that the challenged portion of the court s charge was constitutionally improper. Our Supreme Court has upheld the use of the same instructional language that a reasonable doubt is a real doubt, an honest doubt. State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796, 816 20, 709 A.2d 522 (1998). It is not . . . within our province to overrule or discard the decisions of our Supreme Court. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 722, 745 A.2d 212, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 953, 749 A.2d 1203 (2000). The judgment is affirmed. 1 [A] defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant s claim will fail. (Emphasis in original.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 40.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
