State Of Conn. v. Douglas

• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: DiPENTIMA, C. J.
• Decision Date: 25 January 2011
• Docket Number: AC 31146
• Citation: State v. Douglas, AC 31146 (Conn. App. Jan 25, 2011)
• Parties: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. TRAVIS DOUGLAS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. TRAVIS DOUGLAS

AC 31146

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Argued October 13, 2010

officially released January 25, 2011

The "officially released" date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ''officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ''officially released'' date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.DiPentima, C. J., and Bear and Flynn, Js.

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, geographical area number seven, B. Fischer, J.)

Glenn W. Falk, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Jennifer Rae Taylor, law student intern, for the appellant (defendant).

Nancy L. Walker, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dear-ington, state's attorney, and Ann P. Lawlor, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Opinion

DiPENTIMA, C. J. The defendant, Travis Douglas, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree with intent to cause physical injury to another person by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-59 (a) (5), conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in violation of §§ 53a-48 and 53a-59 (a) (1), reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63 and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35.¹ On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to sustain his conviction of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree and carrying a pistol without a permit, and (2) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his prior uncharged misconduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. After moving from New Haven to Meriden, the defendant and his brother, Tavonne Douglas, became associated with a group of individuals known as the ''New Haven boys.'' While attending Maloney High School in Meriden, animosity developed between the New Haven boys and members of the Twiss Street gang ''over girls.'' This animosity frequently erupted into open acts of hostility, and the Meriden police department has made twenty to twenty-five arrests as a result of fights at the school between members of the two groups.

In a statement made to the Meriden police department on January 18, 2008, Robert Rios, who considered the defendant his best friend, recounted that the defendant had told him that the day after one of those fights in January, 2008, the defendant and his brother were standing outside the defendant's home when they were approached by a group of ''guys and girls Feeling threatened, the defendant pulled out ''a 38 or 32 revolver gun'' that he had obtained from his cousin, Trevor Witherspoon, and fired two gunshots into the crowd. No one was hit on this occasion. Rios further recounted that the gun used on that occasion was given back to Witherspoon, who took it back to New Haven. Rios also stated that the defendant had told him that he intended to buy another gun that day, which would be used ''to shoot somebody or shoot up a party....''

Approximately four months later on April 30, 2008, longtime Meriden resident Heriberto Adorno was driving his truck on Liberty Street in Meriden with his wife when he passed three individuals wearing ''shiny'' jackets. Two of the jackets were hooded and black, one with a shiny gold leafy design, and the other with asilver tree and leaf design. Adorno thought the jackets were ''funny looking'' and shared a laugh with his wife. After passing these three individuals, Adorno testified, that he ''looked in the [rearview] mirror [of his truck, and] they began to shoot.'' Although neither Adorno nor his wife saw a weapon, they both heard what they described as gunshots, and Adorno saw all three individuals he had passed with their hands positioned as if shooting a gun.² Adorno then saw these three individuals run together along Liberty Street to Center Street. At no time did Adorno or his wife see the faces of these individuals.

Fearful for the safety of the children and adults that she had observed sitting on a nearby porch, Adorno's wife called 911 to report the incident. Members of the Meriden police department discovered four.38 caliber bullet shell casings on Liberty Street, which is a busy side street. One of the shells had a very fresh odor of gunpowder residue suggesting recent gunfire. The fact that none of the shell casings had been destroyed by car traffic also indicated that they had been recently discharged.

While canvassing the scene for witnesses, Detective John Williams spoke with a witness with whom he was familiar and who had provided him with reliable information about criminal activity in the past. Officer Brian Sullivan interviewed a group of visibly shaken teenage girls who were found in the vicinity of the crime scene on Liberty Street. On the basis of those interviews and the information provided by the Adornos, the Meriden police determined that the New Haven boys had shot at the Twiss Street gang and that the parties responsible for the shooting were outside 570 Broad Street, the home of the defendant.

Thereafter, Meriden police officers were dispatched to the home of the defendant where the defendant, his brother and Witherspoon were standing outside without jackets. After obtaining a search warrant, members of the Meriden police department searched the defendant's home and discovered two jackets matching the descriptions given by the Adornos. The defendant identified the black jacket with a silver tree or leafy design found on a couch inside the home as his own. The defendant's brother identified as his the jacket with the shiny gold leafy design that was found on a bed inside the home. The police took the two jackets into custody and showed them to the Adornos, who positively identified them as the same ones they had seen worn by the individuals involved in the shooting incident earlier that evening. The defendant, his brother and Witherspoon were then arrested. While the police were processing the defendant, they discovered that he is left-handed.

After being read his Miranda³rights, the defendant admitted to the police that he was at the scene of the shooting with his brother and Witherspoon where heencountered some of the boys on that block who had a "beef" with him and who were "messing" with him. The defendant, however, claimed that he did not know who fired the gunshots and that his group ran home after he heard the gunshots. More than six hours after the shooting, samples were taken from the hands of the defendant, his brother and Witherspoon. A gunshot residue test performed later returned negative results on all three samples. A gunshot residue test performed on the defendant's jacket, however, returned a positive result for lead at the opening to the left-hand pocket.⁴Similarly, a gunshot residue test performed on the jacket belonging to the defendant's brother detected the presence of lead on the cuff of the left sleeve. An analysis of the shell casings performed at the state forensic science laboratory determined that they were.38 Remington casings, all fired from the same weapon, a semiautomatic pistol with a barrel no longer than six inches.

A jury trial was held on January 29 and 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and on March 31, 2009, the court sentenced him to eight years incarceration, followed by eight years of special parole.⁵ Additional facts will be set forth where necessary.

I

The defendant first claims that there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to sustain his conviction of (1) conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree, (2) reckless endangerment in the first degree and (3) carrying a pistol without a permit. We disagree.

We begin by setting forth our standard of review. ''[F]or the purposes of sufficiency review... we review the sufficiency of the evidence as the case was tried.... Claims of evidentiary insufficiency in criminal cases are always addressed independently of claims of evidentiary error.... [A] claim of insufficiency of the evidence must be tested by reviewing no less than, and no more than, the evidence introduced at trial.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Nasheed, 121 Conn. App. 672, 682, 997 A.2d 623, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 902, 3 A.3d 73 (2010).

''The appellate standard of review of sufficiency of the evidence claims is well established. In reviewing a sufficiency [of the evidence] claim, we apply a two part test....