State v. Bryant
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. EUGENE ALPHONZO BRYANT (SC 18147) Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Zarella and Carroll, Js. Argued April 28 officially released May 26, 2009 Auden Grogins, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Timothy F. Costello, deputy assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael L. Regan, state s attorney, and Lonnie Braxton II, senior assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Eugene Alphonzo Bryant, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes ยง 21a-279 (a). State v. Bryant, 106 Conn. App. 97, 98, 940 A.2d 858 (2008). The Appellate Court rejected the defendant s claims that: (1) the trial court had improperly admitted evidence of his prior misconduct; id., 106; and (2) the assistant state s attorney had committed two instances of prosecutorial impropriety that deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial. Id., 110, 114. In his certified appeal to this court, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the decision of the trial court to admit into evidence testimony about police investigations into narcotics activity at a nearby house, to which the defendant had fled, and then subsequently failed to give an adequate curative and limiting instruction to the jury. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. 1 We granted the defendant s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly ruled on and instructed the jury with regard to certain evidence of prior misconduct by the defendant? State v. Bryant, 287 Conn. 905, 950 A.2d 1282 (2008).
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.
