Posts tagged with "#AppellateCourt"

Connecticut Appellate Court Finds That Fiduciary Should Not Have Been Removed as Executrix for Estate

Leave a reply
Saccu’s Appeal from Probate, 97 Conn. App. 710, 905 A.2d 1285 (2006)  

The plaintiff and executrix, Jane Saccu, originally filed accountings with the Probate Court confirming that she utilized estate funds to make repairs to and pay property taxes for real property left to her by the decedent, her father, as a life estate.  The defendant and decedent’s son, Richard Barreta, objected to the accountings and sought to remove the executrix as a fiduciary for the Estate of Gicomo Barretta (the “Estate”).

The plaintiff was removed from her duties as executrix and compelled to reimburse the Estate pursuant to a Probate Court order.  The Probate Court found that the plaintiff had breached her fiduciary obligation when she utilized the estate funds for repairs and taxes. The plaintiff appealed the Probate Court order but the Superior Court entered judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed the appeal.

On appeal to the Appellate Court, the plaintiff claimed that her removal as executrix was an abuse of discretion because there was no finding that she posed a continuing risk to the Estate if she continued in her duties as fiduciary.  The Appellate Court agreed and found, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-242, that the Plaintiff should not have been removed as the executrix because the specific finding had not been made.  The case was remanded with instructions to have the executrix reinstated and the judgment was reversed in part.

–

If you have any questions related to the content above, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a consultation today.

Court Upholds Gun Crime Convictions Where Circumstantial Evidence Established That Missing Weapon Was a Pistol

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut found that despite the absence in the record of a weapon used in a shooting, the State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that it was a pistol. As such, the defendant’s gun crime convictions including criminal possession and use of a pistol were supported by the evidence.

The Case

This case arose from an incident that occurred on May 1, 2004. The victim drank alcohol profusely that evening, first at a party and then at a woman’s house. When he became belligerent and obnoxious, the woman called the defendant, asking him to drive the victim home. The woman became upset with the victim’s behavior and asked him to leave, which he did after yelling at and threatening her.

The defendant called and the woman relayed the most recent events. As the victim was walking home, he noticed a van following him, so he hid in some bushes. As he proceeded once more, he saw the van stopped in front of him. The driver asked if the victim knew the woman, and after the victim said yes he was shot in the stomach. Police soon arrived and transported the victim to the hospital.

During the investigation, the victim told police that the man who shot him drove a gray customized van and used what he thought at first was a cap gun. After his name came up when they spoke with the woman, officers drove by the defendant’s house and observed the vehicle described by the victim. A photographic array was presented to the victim, who chose the defendant’s picture. Officers obtained and executed a search warrant of the defendant’s house, where they seized numerous weapons, magazines and cartridges, and a small amount of marijuana.

The Charges

The defendant was charged with and convicted of assault in the first degree, three counts of criminal possession of a pistol, criminal use of a firearm, and possession of marijuana. On appeal, he argued that the State presented insufficient evidence that the firearm used was a pistol (having a barrel length of less than twelve inches) and thus failed to prove an essential element of the crimes charged. He noted that the weapon used in the shooting was never recovered, and the victim couldn’t describe the weapon in great detail.

The Appellate Court disagreed, noting there was more than enough evidence upon which a jury could reasonably infer the weapon was a pistol. The victim testified that he believed the defendant pointed a cap gun at him; thus, “it is unlikely that anyone would describe as a ‘cap gun’ a firearm with a barrel length longer than one foot.”

In addition, the shell casings at the scene matched ammunition found at the defendant’s house and could be fired from a weapon the defendant once owned. Therefore, the Court concluded that a jury could reasonably conclude that “the missing… pistol was the ‘cap gun’ the victim described as having been used by the defendant in this shooting.” Therefore, the defendant’s insufficiency of the evidence claim failed.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of criminal use or possession of a firearm or other gun-related offenses, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Appellate Court Finds Defendant’s Convictions Proper: Evidence Was Sufficient, and Guilty Verdicts Were Not Legally Inconsistent

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut rejected a defendant’s insufficiency of the evidence and legally inconsistent guilty verdicts claims, upholding the defendant’s convictions.

The Case

This case arose from an incident that occurred on May 20, 2008. The defendant and his friends confronted members of a rival gang, including the victim, who struck the defendant in the face as the two groups met. Each separated and fought others when the defendant “pulled a handgun from his waist and fired five shots into the crowd of participants in the fight,” one which struck the victim. The defendant fired a sixth round as he ran for his vehicle.

The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit. The gun used was never introduced into evidence, but the State provided forensic, testimonial, and demonstrative evidence that the gun used by the defendant had a barrel that did not exceed twelve inches in length. At the close of evidence, the trial court issued a jury instruction that discussed the essential elements of each crime. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts.

On appeal, the defendant first argued that a jury instruction allowed “legally inconsistent guilty verdicts” on the first two charges. He argued that each contained a mutually exclusive mental state – intentionality and recklessness – thus it would be improper to conclude that he acted “intentionally and recklessly with regard to the same act and the same result.” When a court reviews a claim of legal inconsistency, it must determine whether “there is a rational theory by which the jury could have found the defendant guilty of both crimes.” As the Appellate Court highlighted, “It is not inconsistent… to find that a criminal defendant possesses two different mental states, as long as [the] different mental states relate to different results.”

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the Court agreed that the convictions were not legally inconsistent, because the trial court never instructed the jury that the crimes were committed by the same physical act. It explained, “It seems evident that one who deliberately shoots at another person acts intentionally, while one who shoots into a crowd acts recklessly,” a position the defendant did not contest. Thus, the Court determined that it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that the defendant intended to cause injury to the victim, while also being reckless with respect to firing shots into a gathered crowd. Therefore, this aspect of the defendant’s appeal failed.

The defendant also argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of carrying a pistol without a permit. He claimed that the State did not prove that the handgun he fired met the statutory definition of a pistol, which requires a barrel length of less than twelve inches. The Appellate Court readily disagreed with the defendant: based on the forensic, testimonial, and demonstrative evidence supplied to the jury, it could reasonably conclude that the gun’s barrel length was less than twelve inches. “Direct numerical evidence of barrel length is not required to obtain a conviction [for carrying a pistol without a permit].” Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of carrying a pistol without a permit or other gun offenses, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Although Court Misinstructed the Jury on Essential Criminal Elements, Overwhelming Evidence of Guilt Supported the Conviction on Appeal

Leave a reply

In a previous article, the defendant failed to convince the Appellate Court that the State provided insufficient evidence to convict him of numerous charges arising from a robbery incident. He further contended that the trial court misinstructed the jury regarding attempt to commit assault in the first degree, and its failure to do so constituted harmful error that deprived him of his right to fair notice of the charges against him.

The defendant was charged for attempted assault under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1), which requires a showing of attempted serious physical injury by use of a deadly weapon. However, the judge instructed the jury by the language of § 53a-59(a)(5), which only requires intent to cause physical injury by means of discharging a firearm. Because of this error, the defendant argued that the court improperly gave the jury a “legally inadequate theory of liability.”

What is Considered ‘Harmless Error’?

It is harmless error for a court to give an instruction that improperly omits an essential criminal element “if a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” This concept goes hand-in-hand with another principle of appellate review of jury instructions: “[T]he test of a court’s charge is… whether it fairly represents the case to the jury in such a way that injustice is not done to either party.”

The Decision

In this case, the Appellate Court found that with respect to the element describing the type of weapon, the jury was not misled. It received a written copy of the jury charge for deliberation purposes, and within this document was the definition of “deadly weapon.” In addition, the jury found the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, which requires that the defendant be armed with a dangerous weapon while committing the crime.

In addition, the element regarding the seriousness of the attempted injury was satisfied by the evidence. It was undisputed that the perpetrator aimed for the cashier’s midsection while firing at close range. As the Court explained, “There can be no doubt that such action ‘creates a substantial risk of death, or… serious disfigurement… impairment of health… loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.” The defendant never contested this evidence at trial, only his identification as the perpetrator. Therefore, the Court found that the misinstruction was, beyond a reasonable doubt, harmless error and did not mislead the jury.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of larceny, burglary, robbery, or attempt, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Jury Reasonably Inferred Defendant Intended to Sell Cocaine He Constructively Possessed (PWID)

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut found that the State provided sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of possession of narcotics with intent to sell (PWID).

The Case

At 2am on October 19, 2004, a Norwalk police officer observed a vehicle near a business that reported problems with trespassing and the presence of narcotics transactions. After following this vehicle, the officer saw another one in the business’ parking lot, so he initiated a traffic stop of the second vehicle and radioed for assistance. The car had three occupants including the defendant, who was located behind the front-seat passenger. All appeared nervous, and the driver claimed the defendant was his uncle and they were there picking him up. When the officer went to run a check on the driver, the defendant changed his position to behind the driver’s seat.

After backup arrived, the officers placed the occupants under arrest for trespass. However, as the defendant exited the car, officers observed forty-three knotted bags and envelopes with cocaine, a small bag of marijuana, and $15 cash in plain view on the floor behind the front passenger seat. A search of the vehicle produced another bag of marijuana, a cell phone, and $640 in small denominations. No drugs or paraphernalia were found on the defendant, though after being transported to the police station, he provided a false name.

The Defendant’s Charges

The defendant was charged with PWID (cocaine), a violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 21a-227(a), as well as other crimes. At trial, State witnesses testified that the cocaine was packaged in a manner consistent with sales and the defendant was located in a known high drug activity area with no paraphernalia located on him indicating personal use. In addition, the presence of a cell phone and cash in small denominations is common in situations involving drug sales. At the close of State’s evidence, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied.

The jury returned guilty verdicts and the defendant renewed his motion, which was again denied. On appeal, he argued in part that the court improperly denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that he possessed the cocaine and that he intended to sell it.

To convict a defendant for PWID, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “knew the character of the substance, knew of its presence and exercised dominion and control over it.” However, where the defendant does not have exclusive possession of the premises containing the drugs, the State must proceed on a theory of constructive possession, or possession without direct physical contact. Knowledge of the substance cannot be inferred without a showing of incriminating statements and other circumstances. Intent to sell, the second element, may be proven by the manner in which the narcotics are packaged, the defendant’s presence in a known drug trafficking area, and the absence of drug paraphernalia indicating personal use of the substance.

The Decision

In this case, the Appellate Court found that the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant constructively possessed the cocaine and intended to sell it. The Court specifically cited such behavior as the defendant’s movement in the car to distance himself from the narcotics, easy access to the narcotics, and his close proximity indicating he had knowledge of its narcotic character because “[i]t is by now common knowledge that cocaine is often packaged as a white powder in small plastic bags.”

This form of packaging, in conjunction with the defendant’s presence in a known drug trafficking area and the fact police found no drug paraphernalia on his person, allowed a jury to reasonably infer the defendant intended to sell the cocaine. Therefore, the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim failed.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge for possession or distribution of controlled substances, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-211-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Defendant’s Actions Evidenced Specific Intent Required for Kidnapping Charge

Leave a reply

In an opinion issued in early 2012, the Appellate Court of Connecticut found the State met its burden of establishing that a kidnapping victim’s liberty was intentionally prevented by the defendant’s conduct.

The Case

This case arose from an incident that occurred on November 4, 2007. The defendant twice entered the victim’s residence in search of his girlfriend. On the second entry, he forced his way in, placed a handgun to the victim’s stomach, and threatened to kill her. The victim insisted the girlfriend was not present, but the defendant demanded she sit on the couch as he unsuccessfully searched the apartment for the girlfriend. Police subsequently located the defendant and placed him under arrest.

The defendant faced numerous charges, including kidnapping in the second degree with a firearm in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-94a(a). He was convicted on all counts and received a lengthy sentence. On appeal, he argued in part that the State did not meet their burden of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he possessed the intent to deprive the victim of her freedom and liberty.

Establishing a Second-Degree Kidnapping Conviction

To be convicted of second-degree kidnapping with a firearm, the defendant must first abduct another person, or intend to prevent that person’s liberation. This is accomplished either through the use or threatened use of physical force or intimidation, or holding the person at a place where he is not likely to be found. Once the abduction occurs, the perpetrator “uses or is armed with and threatens the use or uses or displays or represents by his words or conduct that he possesses a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or firearm.”

Intent is often proven through circumstantial evidence: unless you are a mind reader, knowing what a person is thinking or intending at any point in time is nearly impossible. Thus, “intent may be inferred from the events leading up to, and immediately following, the conduct in question… the accused’s physical acts and the general surrounding circumstances.” The words used by a defendant may also serve as direct evidence of intent.

In this case, at the time the defendant ordered the victim to sit on the couch, there remained an “implicit threat” stemming from the previous threat against the victim’s life. Therefore, the Appellate Court concluded that the jury could reasonably “infer from the defendant’s conduct that he possessed the requisite specific intent to prevent the victim’s liberation.”

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of kidnapping or unlawful restraint, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Defendant’s Dual-Conviction Violated Double Jeopardy Protections

Leave a reply

According to a previous article, a criminal defendant was unsuccessful on his claim that the State provided insufficient evidence to convict him of assault of a peace officer. However, the claim that his convictions for both that crime and interfering with an officer constituted a double jeopardy violation.

The defendant was found guilty on one count each assault of a peace officer and interfering with an officer, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a-167c(a)(1) and 53a-167a(a), respectively. In his appeal, the defendant argued that a conviction for both violated his constitutional protections against double jeopardy under state and federal law.

The Double Jeopardy Clause

Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, criminal defendants cannot receive two punishments for two crimes, which he asserts to be a single crime, arising from the same transaction and prosecuted in a single trial. To be entitled to this protection, a criminal defendant must show that the charges arise from the same act or transaction and that the charged crimes are, in fact, the same offense. If, however, the court determines that each charge requires proof of an element that the other does not, double jeopardy is typically not implicated.

In this case, the Appellate Court agreed that the double jeopardy clause prohibited conviction for both assault of a peace officer and interfering with an officer. When one looks to the statutory language of each, the latter offense does not contain any criminal elements not also found in the latter offense. The State did not argue the merits of the defendant’s claim. It simply conceded that it expected the Court would vacate the sentence on the second count and combine it with the first, a course of action the Court indeed follow. With respect to the remainder of the defendant’s appeal, the judgment was affirmed.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of assault of a peace officer or interfering with an officer, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Customized Miranda Warnings Given to Sophisticated Defendant Conveyed the “Essential Message”

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut found that a trial court properly denied a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, because an officer’s recitation of the Miranda warnings adequately apprised him of his rights.

The Case

This case arose from an incident that occurred on September 15, 2007, in Stamford. The defendant repeatedly struck a victim in the head using an aluminum baseball bat. The victim suffered life-threatening injuries but survived. The defendant fled to North Carolina, where he was apprehended and returned to Connecticut with two Stamford police officers. During this trip, the defendant made incriminating statements he later sought to suppress.

At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that he gave the defendant the following warnings during the trip:

[H]e has the right to remain silent. Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. He has the right to an attorney. If he cannot afford one, the court will appoint him one. He has the right to stop answering questions at any time. He has the right to invoke his privilege to an attorney at any time. He has the right to not answer specific questions, if he wants to pick and choose the questions he wants to answer.

The officer explained that he prefers to go “above and beyond” the Miranda requirements with added explanations. He asked the defendant whether he understood the warnings, to which the defendant replied, “I know them, I know them, I know them.” The officer testified that at this time, the defendant waived his rights and wished to speak with them.

The Miranda Warnings

The court denied the motion to suppress, noting that the defendant, who had numerous previous arrests, “is very sophisticated, very intelligent and seems to understand a great deal [about] the legal process.” It found that the defendant was “a seasoned individual who understands what Miranda rights are about.” After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1).  On appeal, he claimed the officer’s recitation of Miranda was inadequate, thus the trial court erred in denying his motion. He did not contest how the trial court characterized him.

In the landmark ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the indispensability of counsel at the time of custodial interrogation. The Miranda warnings make sure that a defendant understands his or her constitutional rights, and if police engage the defendant in questioning without reciting these rights, the defendant’s statements may be suppressed. Thus, when a reviewing court considers the adequacy of Miranda warnings, it simply asks “whether the warnings reasonably conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.”

The Court’s Ruling

In this case, the Appellate Court ruled that the officer’s warnings were adequate because they “communicated the same essential message” as required under Miranda. The Court highlighted the defendant’s familiarity with these rights, as evidenced by the trial court’s characterization and his repeated acknowledgement to the officer. “The essential purpose of Miranda warnings is to provide a criminal suspect with the informed choice either to exercise his [f]ifth and [s]ixth [a]mendment rights or to waive them.” Here, the Court stated that aim was accomplished. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Knife-Wielding Defendant Properly Convicted of Attempted Assault, Appellate Court Finds

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut found that the State provided sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of attempt to commit assault in the first degree.

The Case

This case arose from an incident that occurred on October 21, 2006. The defendant and his wife were arguing over his alcoholism when he threatened to kill her. The defendant went to the butcher’s block for a knife, and as the wife fled their home, she saw him opening a kitchen drawer containing loose knives. At a neighbor’s house, the wife called her daughter and asked to be picked up. After the daughter arrived with her boyfriend, the wife realized she forgot her medication at the house, so the group returned to retrieve it.

After entering the home, they saw the defendant standing at the top of the stairs wielding a knife saying “I’m going… to kill her.” As the wife ran for the door, “she saw the defendant start down the stairs toward her, knife raised, before she again ran from the home.” The daughter’s boyfriend saw the defendant swing the knife. Outside, the group called police as the defendant entered the garage. He was placed under arrest, but police could not find a knife on him or inside the garage. However, they located a three-inch knife on the kitchen table.

The Defendant’s Charges

The defendant was charged with attempt to commit assault in the first degree, among other crimes, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a-49(a)(2) and 53a-59(a)(1). At trial, the daughter’s boyfriend testified that the knife he saw the defendant holding was approximately 2.5 to 3 inches in length. The three witnesses, however, provided inconsistent testimony regarding the distance the defendant moved down the stairs. Regardless, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to eighteen years of incarceration.

On appeal, the defendant argued in part that the State provided insufficient evidence to convict him of attempted assault. He claimed that the State did not show he came within close proximity of the wife, or that the knife submitted into evidence was the one he alleged wielded. Finally, he argued that because the testimonial inconsistencies were not resolved, the State failed to meet their burden.

Conviction of Attempted Assault in the First Degree

In Connecticut, to be convicted of attempt to commit assault in the first degree, the State must provide “proof of intentional conduct constituting a substantial step toward intentionally causing the victim serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument.” To qualify as a substantial step, the act taken by the assailant “must be strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose.” In other words, the action had to be the start of “a line of conduct which will lead naturally to the commission of the crime.”

In this case, the Appellate Court was not persuaded by any aspect of the defendant’s insufficiency of the evidence claim. It stated that there is no requirement under Connecticut law that “an assailant must obtain a particular physical proximity to an intended victim to have taken a substantial step toward committing an assault.” Indeed, various types of conduct enumerated in the attempt statute, such as lying in wait and following a contemplated victim, have no physical proximity requirement.

The Court’s Decision

The Appellate Court disagreed that the State failed to authenticate the knife found at the scene as the one used in the crime. It noted the boyfriend’s testimony as consistent with the knife actually found, and noted that the defense “offered no argument in law or logic that a three inch knife cannot be a deadly weapon.” Finally, it is the responsibility of a jury to weigh the credibility of witness testimony, and could either accept all of it, some of it, or none of it.

However, in this case, “nothing in the testimony of the witnesses contradicted the basic facts… that the defendant was holding a knife and advancing toward [his wife] after having threatened her life.” Therefore, it was reasonable for a jury to conclude that the defendant attempted to commit assault using a dangerous instrument.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of assault, battery, or attempt, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Intent Element of Conspiracy Established Where Weapon Used in Robbery Was Obtained in Victim’s Home

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut upheld a defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, since use of a knife obtained the victim’s home furthered the scheme.

The Case

This case arose from an incident that occurred on January 22, 2005. The defendant and another man were armed and wearing masks when they broke into the victim’s apartment. They bound the victim and began to beat him, demanding money and rummaging through his personal belongings. One of the men found a knife in the kitchen and heated it on the stove, then they used it to repeatedly burn the victim in hopes that he would reveal where more money was located. In total, the duo took over $12,000 worth of property and cash from the victim’s residence.

The victim was taken from his home and brought to other locations where additional money may have been located. Despite numerous threats to kill the victim, he was released in a high school parking lot in a neighboring town. The perpetrators left the victim with his cell phone and even called 911 on his behalf before departing. The victim conveyed to the operator that he knew the identity of one of the perpetrators, the defendant, from a previous business transaction. After the victim received treatment for his injuries at a local hospital, he identified the defendant in a police photographic array.

Robbery Charges

The defendant was subsequently charged with numerous counts and convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a-48(a) and 53a-134(a). He was sentenced to eighteen years of incarceration but appealed, arguing in part that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

Under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-133, a person commits a robbery when, during the commission of a larceny, he uses or threatens to use physical force against the victim for one of two purposes: to counter resistance to the taking of property, or to coerce the delivery of property. To qualify for robbery in the first degree, one of four scenarios must be met, including the use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument.

Conspiracy Charges

On the other hand, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime, and one of them commits an overt act in the furtherance of the conspiracy. For the State to secure a conviction, it must show beyond a reasonable doubt “(1) that a defendant intended that conduct constituting a crime be performed [and] (2) that he agreed with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.” Rarely is a conspiracy proven through direct evidence; thus, the use of circumstantial evidence has become commonplace.

The Decision

In this case, the Appellate Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of this crime. The victim testified as to the use of the knife, a “dangerous instrument,” during and in furtherance of the robbery itself. Intent is not diminished simply because the knife was found at the apartment: “As long as the defendant had time to reflect and to deliberate on his actions, he can be held culpable for the requisite specific intent to commit a crime.” Therefore, the conviction was upheld.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of larceny, burglary, conspiracy, or attempt, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.