State v. Conde
Decision Date | 25 December 2001 |
Docket Number | (AC 21406) |
Citation | 787 A.2d 571,67 Conn. App. 474 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MARTIN CONDE |
Lavery, C. J., and Mihalakos and Shea, Js. Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Robert J. Scheinblum, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John A. Connelly, state's attorney, and Robin Lipsky, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant, Martin Conde, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a1 and 53a-8,2 and conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a and 53a-48.3 The defendant claims on appeal that (1) the trial court improperly charged the jury on accessory liability, (2) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of murder as an accessory, (3) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of conspiracy to commit murder, (4) the court improperly (a) declined to admit a witness' earlier testimony as a prior inconsistent statement and (b) responded incompletely to the jury's request to see a portion of the trial transcript, (5) he was deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument and (6) the court improperly instructed the jury regarding his choice not to testify. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. Late in the evening on February 15, 1996, the victim, Anthony DeJesus, also known as "Dejon," was standing in his former mother-in-law's kitchen at 40 East Clay Street in Waterbury, when he was gunned down in a hail of bullets fired into the house from points outside. DeJesus was hit by five bullets and was killed by one that pierced his lung. A witness who lived across the street saw three men, who appeared to be Caucasian or Hispanic, running from the crime scene. It later was determined that three different firearms were used in the killing.
DeJesus, at the time of his death, was a member of the Waterbury chapter of the Nietas, a gang with roots in Puerto Rico's prison system. The defendant at that time was the local president of the Nietas. DeJesus had worked for the defendant selling drugs. DeJesus formerly had been a member of the local chapter of the Latin Kings, a larger gang whose members tended to be younger than those of the Nietas. Both gangs operated in the south end of Waterbury and made money selling drugs. The relationship between the two gangs was cooperative rather than antagonistic; at some time prior to the events in question, they had entered into a peace treaty.
About one and one-half weeks prior to DeJesus' killing, several members of the two gangs met at the defendant's home to discuss DeJesus. At the meeting, a conversation took place between the defendant and two high ranking members of the Latin Kings. Those members were Ricky Lespier (Ricky), the president of the Meriden chapter, and Jose Dupree (Red), the Waterbury regional commander.4 Ricky and Red expressed anger to the defendant regarding a recent incident in which DeJesus had disrespected Red by going to Red's home and threatening him with a gun in front of his family. Ricky told the defendant that he wanted something done because he believed that DeJesus' actions were wrong. The defendant also expressed anger at DeJesus because DeJesus owed him money.5 The defendant said he wanted DeJesus dead, and told Ricky and Red to "[g]o ahead and kill him."
In an information dated March 21, 1997, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and murder as an accessory, and was tried before a jury in 1999. Several witnesses testified for the prosecution, including Julio Lugo and Enrique Adorno. Lugo was a member of the Bristol area Latin Kings who had attended the meeting at the defendant's home and heard the entire conversation between the defendant, Ricky and Red. He also was visited on the night of DeJesus' murder by three Latin Kings members who rushed into Lugo's home and told him that they "did Dejon."6
Adorno, a former member of the Nietas, knew both the defendant and DeJesus for several years. Adorno was associated with the Nietas for eight years, and his position within the gang was "president of discipline." He testified that that meant that "if something goes wrong with one of the family members, [he would] take care of it." Adorno at one point had sold drugs and collected money, approximately $10,000 weekly, for the defendant. Sometime in the winter of 1996, prior to DeJesus' death, Adorno witnessed the defendant and DeJesus arguing over money, apparently because DeJesus had been selling drugs independently. The defendant told DeJesus that he was tired of waiting for his money. At a party subsequent to DeJesus' murder, the defendant confided in Adorno that he had been involved in the murder and, specifically, that "[he] ... and this Latin King guy Red said to do Dejon."
At the close of the state's evidence, the defendant made an oral motion for a judgment of acquittal on both counts, which was denied by the court. The defense rested without presenting any evidence, then renewed that motion, which was again denied. The jury thereafter returned a verdict of guilty as to each crime, and the court rendered a judgment of conviction. Additional facts will be set forth where necessary to address the issues on appeal.
The defendant claims first that the court's charge to the jury on accessorial liability was improper. Specifically, he argues that the court improperly conveyed to the jurors that they could find him guilty as an accessory to murder on the basis of his "nonactions," without instructing further that nonaction could be the basis of a conviction only if the defendant had a legal duty to act. The defendant claims that the court's "misleading and legally erroneous instructions" mandate that he be afforded a new trial on the murder as an accessory charge. We disagree.
The defendant took exception to the charge as given and, therefore, preserved his claim for our review. See Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Faria, 254 Conn. 613, 632, 758 A.2d 348 (2000). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gayle, 64 Conn. App. 596, 605, 781 A.2d 383, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 920, 782 A.2d 1248 (2001).
The court charged the jury regarding accomplice liability as to murder as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jackson
...discretionary evidentiary rulings, we make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding those rulings." State v. Conde, 67 Conn.App. 474, 495, 787 A.2d 571 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 927, 793 A.2d 251 It is the defendants' contention that the statement given to the police was not......
-
State v. Bennett, 18606.
...at 595–96, 563 A.2d 671;State v. Wright, supra, at 83, 822 A.2d 940;State v. Ashe, supra, at 515, 812 A.2d 194;State v.Conde, 67 Conn.App. 474, 477, 787 A.2d 571 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 927, 793 A.2d 251 (2002); State v. Green, supra, at 219, 774 A.2d 157;State v. Romero, supra, at ......
-
State v. Reynolds
...Moore, 69 Conn.App. 117, 125, 795 A.2d 563 (2002) (state's attorney improperly referred to facts not in evidence); State v. Conde, 67 Conn.App. 474, 499, 787 A.2d 571 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 927, 793 A.2d 251 (2002) (state's attorney improperly referred to hearsay testimony not in S......
-
Macomber v. Travelers Property & Cas. Corp.
...the plaintiff cites two cases, namely, State v. McLaughlin, 132 Conn. 325, 333, 44 A.2d 116 (1945), and State v. Conde, 67 Conn.App. 474, 497-98 n. 13, 787 A.2d 571 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 927, 793 A.2d 251 (2002), for the proposition that "`[o]ne who comes into a conspiracy after i......