State v. Crosswell, 14286
Decision Date | 04 August 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 14286,14286 |
Citation | 223 Conn. 243,612 A.2d 1174 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Dennis CROSSWELL. |
Charles D. Ray, Sp. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Harry Weller, Asst. State's Atty., with whom were John M. Bailey, State's Atty., and, on the brief, Rosita M. Creamer, Sr. Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, GLASS, BORDEN and BERDON, JJ.
The principal issues in this criminal appeal arise out of the contention of the defendant, Dennis Crosswell, that he is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of evidentiary insufficiency on each count of the multi-count substitute information lodged against him by the state. After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of the crimes of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134(a)(4), conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134(a)(4), burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-101(a)(2) and 53a-8, conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-101 (a)(2), and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-60(a)(2) and 53a-8. 1 The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences on the first four counts and a consecutive sentence on the fifth count for an effective term of sixteen years imprisonment. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c). We reverse the judgment in part.
The defendant and Everald Howard were charged as codefendants with the same crimes and were tried jointly. In State v. Howard, 221 Conn. 447, 450-51, 604 A.2d 1294 (1992), affirming Howard's conviction, we noted the facts that the jury could reasonably have found.
The defendant has proffered numerous claims in support of his contention that his conviction must be overturned. 5 First, he contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for acquittal, because of insufficiency of the evidence, on each of the charges of which he was convicted. 6 Second, he maintains that the information charging him with burglary in the first degree was so defective that it either deprived the trial court of jurisdiction or misled the jury into convicting the defendant without a finding that the state had proven one essential element of the crime. Third, he argues that principles of double jeopardy forbid his conviction of two conspiracies arising out of the same alleged agreement between the three conspirators. Fourth, he claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress, which challenged the reliability of his identification by Smith and Hutchinson. Fifth, he asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court abused its discretion in denying trial counsel access to Holmes' psychiatric records. We agree in part with the defendant's claims about the sufficiency of the evidence, but otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant does not challenge the standard governing this court's review of claims relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a criminal conviction. State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71, 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Roseboro, 221 Conn. 430, 434, 604 A.2d 1286 (1992). Applying that standard in this case, we conclude that the evidence presented by the state could reasonably have persuaded the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the first three crimes with which he was charged, robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree. There was, however, insufficient evidence to support the verdict on the fourth count, conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree, or on the fifth count, assault in the second degree.
With respect to the charge of robbery in the first degree, the information charged the defendant with having "used and/or threatened the immediate use of physical force upon another" during the course of a larceny. The trial court's instructions to the jury on this charge referred to the language of the statute without including any reference to the defendant's possible accessorial liability. In light of these instructions, the defendant maintains that he is entitled to an acquittal because there was no evidence that he personally threatened anyone or that his actions were taken in the course of committing a larceny. We disagree with both of these assertions.
Under the governing statutes, "[a] person commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (1) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (2) compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the larceny." General Statutes § 53a-133. A person has committed robbery in the first degree if, "in the course of the commission of the crime ... he or another participant in the crime ... uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument." General Statutes § 53a-134(a)(3).
"The use or threatened use of immediate physical force is the element which distinguishes larceny from robbery." State v. Childree, 189 Conn. 114, 123, 454 A.2d 1274 (1983). "[I]f the use of force occurs during the continuous sequence of events surrounding the taking ... even though some time immediately before or after, it is considered to be 'in the course of' the robbery ... within the meaning of the statute." State v. Ghere, 201 Conn. 289, 297, 513 A.2d 1226 (1986).
The jury could reasonably have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant forced his way onto the premises, in the company of two other persons, one or another of whom was at all times brandishing a gun. By their words and conduct, acting in concert, all three made it clear that they would brook no interference in their search for the property they expected to find. The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Vandeusen
...A.2d 699 (2009) ("[a] coconspirator's conduct at the scene can provide the requisite evidence of an agreement"); State v. Crosswell, 223 Conn. 243, 256, 612 A.2d 1174 (1992) ("[T]he requisite agreement or confederation may be inferred from proof of the separate acts of the individuals accus......
-
Gonzalez v. Warden, State Prison
...the language in McCalpine - that the accessory is not required to know of or endorse every act of his co-participant- as dicta. Id., 258. Croswell also disapproved of the language McCalpine that "the accessory was not required to possess the intent to commit the specific degree of the crime......
-
State Conn. v. Johnson
...liable for the crime alleged in the information. In support of these arguments, the defendant relies on two cases, State v. Crosswell, 223 Conn. 243, 612 A.2d 1174 (1992), and Warwick v. United States, 528 A.2d 438 (D.C. 1987). Both of these cases are distinguishable from the facts before t......
-
State v. Santiago, No. 17413.
... ... See, e.g., State v. Flowers, 278 Conn. 533, 544, 898 A.2d 789 (2006); State v. Crosswell, 223 Conn. 243, 263, 612 A.2d 1174 (1992). Thus, as the state concedes, the conspiracy instructions, to the extent that their full incorporation by ... ...