State v. Joly
In State v. Joly, 219 Conn. 234, 260-61, 593 A.2d 96 (1991), the defendant claimed that he was deprived of his right to present a defense by the "court's refusal to allow him to introduce circumstantial evidence of a beating that he allegedly had suffered at the hands of the Bristol police following his arrest for an unrelated incident . . . ." Id., at 258.
The defendant argued that the evidence relating to the alleged beating was necessary to rebut the state's argument that his lies and nervousness evidenced his consciousness of guilt. The court concluded that "due to the prejudicial tendency of the defendant's evidence to divert the trial from its primary course and provoke a barrage of distracting counterproof . . . the trial court acted well within its discretion in excluding the evidence notwithstanding its logical relevance." Id., at 262.