STATE v. JOSE D. MELENDEZ, SC 18052

Judicial District of New Haven

 Criminal; Whether Defendant's Due Process Right to a Meaningful Plea Bargain was Violated by State's Purportedly Untimely Disclosure of DVD Containing Edited and Enhanced Footage of Videotape Taken by Confidential Informant; Whether Trial Court Improperly Denied Defendant's Motion for Specific Performance of Plea Bargain; Whether DVD was Admitted into Evidence Without Proper Foundation.  In 2004, the statewide narcotics task force and the drug enforcement agency conducted a joint investigation into alleged sales of drugs at the Fireside Restaurant and Bar in New Haven.  In furtherance of the investigation, a confidential informant was sent into Fireside wearing a video recording device concealed in his jacket.  On two separate occasions in Fireside, the informant purchased cocaine from the defendant.  The defendant was subsequently charged with two counts of sale of narcotics by a non-drug dependent person and two counts of selling a controlled substance within 1500 feet of a licensed day care center.  In response to a request for disclosure filed by the defendant, the state disclosed the informant's videotape of the two drug transactions involving the defendant.  According to the defendant, the videotape was of poor quality and showed only the exchange of money but not the exchange of any drugs.  The defendant claims that, as a result, he rejected a plea bargain offered by the state and opted to go to trial.  During jury selection, the state disclosed a DVD containing edited and enhanced footage of the two drug transactions involving the defendant.  Claiming that the state's disclosure of the DVD was untimely, the defendant moved to compel specific performance of the plea bargain.  The trial court rejected the motion, and, following a trial, the defendant was convicted on all charges.  On appeal, the defendant claims that the state's untimely disclosure of the DVD deprived him of his due process right to a meaningful plea bargain and that the trial court's denial of his motion for specific performance of the plea bargain was improper.  The defendant also claims that the trial court improperly admitted the DVD without a proper evidentiary foundation because the agent whom the state used to enter the evidence (1) was not in control of the recording device when it recorded the transactions, (2) did not make the changes to the videotape that resulted in the enhanced version on the DVD, and (3) could not testify as to how the changes were made.  The defendant additionally claims several incidents of prosecutorial impropriety by the state.