State v. Covington

Decision Date25 March 2020
Docket NumberSC 20198
Citation335 Conn. 212,229 A.3d 1036
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. Jeffrey COVINGTON

Naomi T. Fetterman, with whom was Aaron Romano, Bloomfield, for the appellant (defendant).

Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick Griffin, state's attorney, and John P. Doyle and Seth Garbarsky, senior assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.

MULLINS, J.

In this certified appeal, the defendant, Jeffrey Covington, claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed his conviction for carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a).1 In particular, he argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that the firearm he was alleged to have been carrying had a barrel length of less than twelve inches. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court's opinion sets forth the following relevant facts, which the jury reasonably could have found at trial. "At or about 8 p.m., on March 24, 2014, the defendant was operating an automobile that was owned by his friend, Derek Robinson. When the defendant drove Robinson's automobile away from the intersection of Whalley Avenue and Ella T. Grasso Boulevard in New Haven, Robinson was in the passenger's seat. A short time later, at approximately 8:50 p.m., Robinson's automobile was parked along Shelton Avenue in New Haven .... At that time, the victims, Trayvon Washington and Taijhon Washington, were walking home from a friend's house. They walked past Robinson's automobile while someone was getting into it.... Approximately two minutes after they had passed the automobile ... [it] approached them at a high rate of speed.... Then, several gunshots emanated from the automobile. Taijhon Washington suffered fatal gunshot injuries to his chest. Trayvon Washington was shot in the head, resulting in a fractured skull

. Although he survived the shooting, he endured extensive medical treatment, and a bullet from that incident remained lodged in his head at the time of trial.

"Following the shooting, the defendant drove to the residence of his girlfriend's family on Poplar Street in New Haven. He was accompanied by Robinson. The defendant's girlfriend along with some of her family members, including her sister, Dajah Crenshaw, were present at the residence.... When the defendant entered the residence, he was holding the keys to Robinson's automobile. Crenshaw observed Robinson remove a handgun from his waistband and hand it to the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant concealed the handgun in a dresser in his girlfriend's bedroom.

"The following day, Crenshaw overheard the defendant having a telephone conversation with Robinson's brother. During the conversation, the defendant referred to a gun, and he asked Robinson's brother if he had buried it. In the days that followed, the defendant made various statements that reflected his involvement in and responsibility for the shooting. Significantly, the defendant admitted to a longtime acquaintance, Margaret Flynn, that he happened to catch Taijhon Washington off guard and had killed him. The defendant elaborated, stating that the shooting occurred while he was in Robinson's automobile but that Robinson was not involved and was unaware that the shooting was going to happen. Moreover, the defendant told Flynn that he had retaliated against Taijhon Washington because, in February [2014], relatives of Taijhon Washington assaulted him." (Footnotes omitted.) State v. Covington , 184 Conn. App. 332, 335–37, 194 A.3d 1224 (2018) ; see also id., 336–37, 194 A.3d 1224 n.3 (describing consciousness of guilt evidence admitted at trial, as well as evidence that, while incarcerated pending trial, "[t]he defendant flippantly acknowledged in the presence of others that he had been the shooter").

The defendant was subsequently charged with, inter alia, carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of § 29-35 (a).2 At the defendant's trial, the state did not present direct, numerical evidence of the length of the barrel of the firearm that it alleged he had used to commit the shooting. The firearm was never recovered by the police, and none of the state's witnesses specifically described its barrel length.

The jury was, however, presented with the following relevant circumstantial evidence about the firearm. Earl Williams, a firearms examiner, testified about his examination of the two bullets retrieved from Taijhon Washington's body. He testified that both bullets were ".32 caliber class bullets" and, although mangled, exhibited discernable "rifling" impressions. Williams explained that rifling impressions are created by firearms that are manufactured with grooves along the inside of the barrel to make the bullets rotate when fired. Williams testified that rifling impressions are typical of "all rifled firearms" and that "handguns, such as pistols and revolvers" leave rifling impressions. Williams explained that shotguns, by contrast, "are a smooth bore" and do not have rifling. Williams further testified that the bullets found in Taijhon Washington's body were "consistent with bullets that would be fired out of a .32 caliber handgun or revolver."3

The state also called Crenshaw as a witness. Crenshaw testified that, while riding in Robinson's vehicle a few hours before the shooting occurred, she saw "a gun" inside the glove compartment. Although Crenshaw did not testify about the size of the glove compartment, the state submitted into evidence a photograph of the interior of Robinson's vehicle, which depicted the glove compartment open.

Crenshaw further testified that, when the defendant and Robinson arrived at her residence shortly after the shooting occurred, she saw Robinson carrying "a handgun." Specifically, Crenshaw testified that she saw Robinson "pull [the] gun out of his waistband" and hand it to the defendant, who then hid it inside of a dresser drawer. Crenshaw also testified that she had not seen that firearm before, and that she could not describe what it looked like.

The jury found the defendant guilty of carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of § 29-35 (a). The trial court imposed a sentence on this conviction of five years incarceration, execution suspended after three years, followed by three years of probation.4 State v. Covington , supra, 184 Conn. App. 334 n.1, 194 A.3d 1224.

The defendant appealed from this conviction to the Appellate Court, claiming that there was insufficient evidence that he carried a firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve inches.5 Id., 341, 194 A.3d 1224. In rejecting this claim, the Appellate Court concluded, first, that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the defendant, rather than Robinson, was the shooter and, therefore, that he had carried a firearm of some type at the time and place of the shooting. Id., 343–44, 194 A.3d 1224.

Second, the Appellate Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the barrel length of the firearm was less than twelve inches. Id., 350, 194 A.3d 1224. The Appellate Court relied on Williams' testimony that the rifling impressions on the bullets recovered from Taijhon Washington's body were "consistent" with having been fired from a "handgun or revolver," as well as Crenshaw's testimony that, shortly after the shooting occurred, she saw Robinson remove "a handgun" from his "waistband" and hand it to the defendant. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 345–46, 194 A.3d 1224. The Appellate Court reasoned that the use of the terms "revolver" and "handgun" by these witnesses permitted the jury to infer that the length of the barrel of the firearm used in the shooting was less than twelve inches. Id., 347–49, 194 A.3d 1224. The Appellate Court further reasoned that Crenshaw's testimony that Robinson removed the handgun from his "waistband" permitted the jury to conclude "that the barrel of the gun must [have been] less than twelve inches in length." Id., 349, 194 A.3d 1224.

On appeal to this court,6 the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that there was sufficient evidence that the firearm had a barrel length of less than twelve inches.7 We disagree.

We begin with the general principles governing our review. "The standard of review we apply to a claim of insufficient evidence is well established. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction we apply a [two part] test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [jury] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....

"We also note that the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense, [but] each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.... If it is reasonable and logical for the jury to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the jury is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt....

"Additionally, [a]s we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt ... nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Stephenson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2021
    ...view of the evidence that supports the [jury's] verdict of guilty." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Covington , 335 Conn. 212, 219, 229 A.3d 1036 (2020) ; see also State v. Adams , 327 Conn. 297, 304–305, 173 A.3d 943 (2017). We are mindful, however, that inferences cannot be b......
  • State v. Bruny
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 7, 2022
    ...a reasonable doubt that its barrel is less than twelve inches in length." (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted.) State v. Covington , 335 Conn. 212, 220, 229 A.3d 1036 (2020). In Covington , we held that the barrel length element had been proven by sufficient evidence when the state presente......
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • January 25, 2022
    ...of business."7 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Covington , 184 Conn. App. 332, 339, 194 A.3d 1224 (2018), aff'd, 335 Conn. 212, 229 A.3d 1036 (2020). This court has explained that carrying a pistol and possession of a pistol are different concepts. See id. Although "a person ca......
  • Morales v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • July 4, 2023
    ...to accept or reject." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Covington, 184 Conn.App. 332, 343, 194 A.3d 1224 (2018), aff'd, 335 Conn. 212, 229 A.3d 1036 (2020). Thus, the jury was free to credit those portions of the petitioner's testimony in which he stated that he feared for his li......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT