STATE
v. PATRICK WRIGHT,
Criminal;
Protective Order; Right to Counsel; Whether Defendant was Entitled to Challenge
Validity of § 46b-38c Protective Order at Trial; Whether Defendant had Right to
Counsel at Hearing on Protective Order.
The defendant was arrested after an altercation at his apartment with
his girlfriend’s sister. After the defendant
was arraigned, the trial court granted the sister a protective order, pursuant
to General Statues § 46b-38c, that precluded the defendant from contacting her
and from entering his own apartment. Although
the defendant had applied for a public defender at his arraignment, the court
had not yet appointed one at the time of the arraignment or the hearing on the
protective order. Therefore, the
defendant represented himself at both proceedings. Several days later, the police arrested the
defendant for violating the protective order by entering the apartment and for interfering
with a police officer. At trial, the
defendant attempted to offer evidence that the protective order was not valid
because § 46b-38a only allows members of an individual’s family or household to
obtain such orders, and his girlfriend’s sister was neither. The trial court determined that the validity
of the protective order was not at issue in the trial and prohibited the
defendant from introducing evidence and cross examining witnesses as to the matter. The jury convicted the defendant of violating
the protective order and acquitted him of the interference charge. In this appeal, the Supreme Court will decide
whether the trial court, by ruling that the defendant could not contest the
validity of the order, violated his constitutional right to present a defense
by effectively relieving the state of its burden of proving all the elements of
the crime. In addition, the court will
decide whether the defendant was denied his constitutional right to counsel at
his arraignment and at the hearing on the protective order.