December 5 – A man serving a 65-year prison sentence for murder in the brutal death of a 63-year-old New London man asks the state Supreme Court to overturn his conviction.
Christopher Petteway claims in his appeal to the state Supreme Court, among other things, that the trial court improperly denied his attempt to represent himself at trial. Petteway, who had refused to appear at his own jury selection, trial or sentencing, was convicted by a jury last year of murder and violation of a protective order in the Oct. 4, 2018, death of his ex-boyfriend Robert Parise.
Petteway had threatened Parise prior to the murder and shortly after his release from a 30-day jail sentence related to domestic violence with Parise, he drove from Bridgeport to New London and stabbed Parise to death. Police said Petteway admitted to the killing afterward and bragged about the killing.
Petteway had repeatedly filed complaints about his court-appointed attorneys as his case moved closer to trial and was granted a motion to represent himself in January 2023. But when jury selection began two months later, Petteway refused to return to court after the lunch break and was returned to jail.
Although he was previously found competent to stand trial, his continued disruptions and delays led Judge Shari Murphy to appoint attorney Christopher Duby, who had been his standby counsel, to represent him.
“I do not authorize this man to represent me,” Petteway said.
Attorney Naomi T. Fetterman, who represented Petteway before state Supreme Court justices on Thursday, argued that Petteway had a constitutional right to represent himself and that his failure to show up after a lunch break should not constitute a waiver of that right mean.
“What we have is Mr. P, on his own, refusing to participate in jury selection,” Fetterman said. “The judge ruled that he cannot continue to represent himself. That is simply not the case.”
Judge Steven D. Ecker said that given Petteway’s unwillingness to appear in court, he would not have forfeited his right to represent himself and the judge would have no choice but to appoint Duby.
If a suspect knowingly waives the right to be present, the trial should continue, Fetterman argued.
“If you voluntarily chose not to attend, how do you represent yourself?” asked Judge Andrew J. McDonald. “The judge should be in charge of the courtroom. That can’t be the state. It can’t be the defendant. So if the defendant voluntarily withdraws from the courtroom, can he be forced into the courtroom by the marshals? courtroom to sit there and not participate in voir dire of the jurors?”
“What was the court supposed to do?” McDonald asked.
Fetterman said jury selection should have gone ahead without him.
“Is that a good prospect for the justice system if someone can be convicted in absentia without representation?” McDonald said.
Deputy State’s Attorney Laurie Feldman, who is representing the state, argued that Petteway, who had postponed the proceedings several times, had been warned by the judge that his absence from court would amount to a waiver of his right to represent himself.
Before the trial, Petteway was allowed to fire two former public defenders and be housed on special transport from the jail due to back pain.
There is no timetable for a Supreme Court decision.
