State v. Abraham

Decision Date31 May 2022
Docket NumberSC 20314
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. Juny Oscar ABRAHAM
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Megan L. Wade, Hartford, assigned counsel, with whom was Emily Graner Sexton, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Brett R. Aiello, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Ann P. Lawlor, senior assistant state's attorney, and Joseph T. Corradino, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

ECKER, J.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Juny Oscar Abraham, was convicted of home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (2), attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-59 (a) (1), reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63 (a), and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant raises three claims: (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes of conviction; (2) the jury's verdict of guilty of attempt to commit assault in the first degree and reckless endangerment was legally inconsistent; and (3) his conviction of home invasion and attempt to commit assault in the first degree violates the double jeopardy clause of the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The victim, Israel Alvarez, lived with his wife and four children in the second floor apartment of a two family home located at 903 Kossuth Street in Bridgeport. At approximately 5 p.m. on September 21, 2017, the victim and his first floor neighbor, Israel Martin, were sitting on the front porch of the home when they noticed a light-skinned man dressed in black jeans and a black hoodie approaching them. As he approached, the man pulled his hood up over his head and a black mask over his mouth and nose, leaving only his eyes visible. He also pulled out a silver nine millimeter Sig Sauer pistol, which he cocked as he approached.

Martin jumped off the porch and ran around to the back of the building, while the victim ran into the house through the front door and up the stairs to his second floor apartment. As he ran upstairs, the victim encountered his eight year old son walking downstairs. The victim told his son to run, and, seeing the masked man chasing his father, he complied. The victim's eight year old son ran upstairs to his room and hid under the bed.

The victim entered his apartment and locked the door behind him, but, moments later, the masked gunman kicked it open. The victim hid behind the open door, while the masked gunman entered the living room of the apartment waving his pistol and yelling, "where is the little motherfucker ...." Curious about the commotion, the victim's wife and fourteen year old son entered the living room and saw the masked gunman.

During the ensuing tumult, the victim snuck halfway down the stairs and yelled, "I'm right here, motherfucker," in an effort to lure the gunman away from his family. The gunman exited the second floor apartment and followed the victim down the stairs.

The victim ran out of the building onto the sidewalk, where he withdrew his lawfully concealed .40 caliber pistol from its holster and repeatedly instructed his pursuer to drop his weapon.1 The masked gunman, who was standing in the doorway of the building at this point, raised his own pistol and said, "get over here now, motherfucker." The masked gunman then shot his pistol once, and the victim returned fire, shooting toward the masked gunman three or four times. At least one of the victim's bullets struck the masked gunman, who stumbled off the porch, went around to the side of the building, and collapsed by the bulkhead door.

After hearing gunshots, the victim's wife and fourteen year old son ran outside to check on the victim. The victim embraced his wife and then walked toward Shelton Street to look for the masked gunman. On Shelton Street, a charcoal gray Nissan Titan truck almost struck the victim as it fled the area. The victim could not see who was inside of the truck, but both he and Martin recognized it as the same truck that had driven by their building multiple times earlier in the day.

The police responded to the shooting at 903 Kossuth Street within minutes. Neither the victim, his family, nor Martin was able to identify the masked gunman, but the victim and Martin provided the police with a description of the gray truck that had fled the scene. Shortly thereafter, the police stopped a gray Nissan Titan truck at the intersection of Barnum and Central Avenues, which is approximately five minutes from 903 Kossuth Street. The defendant, who was wearing khaki pants and a white T-shirt, was a passenger in the truck and the registered owner of the vehicle. The defendant was suffering from a recently inflicted gunshot wound and was transported by ambulance to Bridgeport Hospital for immediate medical treatment.

The police never recovered the nine millimeter pistol wielded by the masked gunman or the black clothing and mask that he wore. During their investigation at 903 Kossuth Street, however, the police discovered four .40 caliber shell casings, all of which had been fired by the victim's pistol.2 One nine millimeter shell casing also was found. Additionally, the police found blood on the sidewalk, back door, and bulkhead door. Subsequent DNA testing revealed that the blood was the defendant's.

The defendant was arrested and charged with home invasion, attempt to commit assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a child. At the defendant's jury trial, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that all of the eyewitnesses had identified the clothing worn by the masked gunman as black but that the defendant was wearing khaki pants and a white T-shirt when he was apprehended by the police shortly after the shooting. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury found the defendant guilty of the crimes charged. Prior to sentencing, defense counsel renewed the motion for a judgment of acquittal, again arguing that the evidence of guilt was insufficient because the defendant's clothing did not match the clothing of the perpetrator. The trial court denied the motion, rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict, and sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of thirty years of incarceration.3 This appeal followed.4

I

The defendant first claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because none of the eyewitnesses identified him as the perpetrator, no evidence was produced as to his motive for the commission of the crimes, and he was not wearing black clothing or armed with a pistol when he was apprehended by the police shortly after the shooting. We reject this claim.

"[T]he question of identity of a perpetrator of a crime is a question of fact that is within the sole province of the jury to resolve." State v. Jackson , 257 Conn. 198, 206, 777 A.2d 591 (2001). To determine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the essential element of identity, "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 .... In doing so, we are mindful that the trier of fact is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant's innocence. ... The trier [of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hughes , 341 Conn. 387, 397–98, 267 A.3d 81 (2021).

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must "focus on the evidence presented, not the evidence that the state failed to present ...." State v. Davis , 324 Conn. 782, 798, 155 A.3d 221 (2017). Additionally, we do not draw a "distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence so far as probative force is concerned .... Indeed, [c]ircumstantial evidence ... may be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jackson , supra, 257 Conn. at 206, 777 A.2d 591. "It is not one fact ... but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts [that] establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Seeley , 326 Conn. 65, 73, 161 A.3d 1278 (2017).

We conclude that the evidence adduced by the state was more than sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the crimes of conviction. The defendant's blood was found outside of 903 Kossuth Street in the exact location where the masked gunman collapsed after he had been shot.5 The defendant was apprehended only five minutes away from the shooting suffering from a recently inflicted gunshot wound. Additionally, the defendant was found in a gray Nissan Titan truck, which matched the description of the vehicle seen fleeing the scene immediately after the shooting. The Nissan Titan truck was registered to the defendant and was observed driving past 903 Kossuth Street multiple times earlier that day.

Notwithstanding the foregoing evidence, the defendant contends that the jury could not reasonably have found that he was the masked gunman because it was speculative for the jury "to infer that the defendant, who had no connection to [the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Patrick M.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 2, 2022
    ...by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Abraham , 343 Conn. 470, 476, 274 A.3d 849 (2022). In view of these principles, it is readily apparent that the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference th......
  • State v. Patrick M.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 2, 2022
    ...Jones with a gun. The defendant had a motive to murder Y and had expressed a willingness to take action consistent with that motive. See id., 479 (although motive is essential element of murder, 7 "the existence or absence of motive often is used at trial to construct a narrative of guilt o......
  • State v. Lanier
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 11, 2023
    ...... aside matters of common knowledge or their own observations. and experiences, but rather, to apply them to the facts as. presented to arrive at an intelligent and correct. conclusion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.). State v. Abraham, 343 Conn. 470, 478, 274. A.3d 849 (2022). The notion that a probationer would have. been motivated to avoid an arrest-a point that defense. counsel was given adequate opportunity to make-was within the. jurors' common knowledge. Indeed, defense counsel. leveraged ......

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