State v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 26 January 2021
• Docket Number: AC 42327
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Tywan EDWARDS

202 Conn.App. 384

245 A.3d 866

STATE of Connecticut

v.Tywan EDWARDS

AC 42327

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 21, 2020

Officially released January 26, 2021

Jeremiah Donovan, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Nancy L. Walker, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and Karen M. Roberg, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Lavine, Alexander and Flynn, Js.^*

LAVINE, J.

The defendant, Tywan Edwards, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to a jury, of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of larceny in the second degree because the jury could not reasonably have found that (a) he possessed stolen property of a value greater than $10,000 or (b) he knew the property in his possession was stolen, (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the testimony that the victim had identified items in a video exhibit as his, in violation of the rule against hearsay, (3) the trial court improperly prevented the defendant from cross-examining a witness concerning her alleged drug dealing subsequent to the crime with which he was charged, and (4) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury concerning reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, are relevant to this appeal. Samantha Frank (Samantha)¹ generated income by working from her New Haven home as a psychic and by illegally selling pills for which a prescription was required. One of her customers was Dijon Edwards, the wife of the defendant's brother, Terrance Edwards. On January 20, 2017, Dijon Edwards, accompanied by a man named Marcel, purchased pills from Samantha.² Later that night, two men broke into the Franks’ home, disturbing Samantha, her husband David Frank (David), and two relatives who were staying with them. One of the men wore a mask covering the lower portion of his face. The intruders threatened them at knifepoint and stabbed David in the arm. The men took Samantha's purse and David's wallet and left. The purse contained car keys, jewelry, and, notably, three expensive watches: a Rolex Daytona watch and two Rolex Datejust watches, which are at the center of this appeal.

The Franks (victims) called the police, and David went to the hospital. The victims later spoke to Detectives Kealyn Nivakoff and her partner, members of the New Haven Police Department. The victims gave statements and identified the defendant and his brother as the intruders.

The police undertook surveillance of Terrance Edwards’ residence. On January 23, 2017, Nivakoff interviewed Terrance Edwards and Dijon Edwards. At the conclusion of Terrance Edwards’ interview, Nivakoff searched his wallet and found a driver's license and Social Security card belonging to David. The police made contact

with the defendant that day, at which time they searched him with his consent and found a business card from the American Diamond Exchange on his person. The police subsequently searched Terrance Edwards’ residence and recovered jewelry and a Rolex Daytona. The victims identified the items the police found in the residence as theirs, which they had last seen on the night of the break-in. A search of Dijon Edwards’ phone revealed a photograph of a Rolex watch. When David was shown a printout of the photograph from Dijon Edwards’ phone, he identified his stolen property, writing "Yes, that's my [Rolex] Daytona watch 5-16-18" on the photograph.

Nivakoff went to the American Diamond Exchange and spoke to a clerk, Kathleen Kirker, who had interacted with the defendant. Nivakoff viewed a surveillance video of the defendant's visit. The video depicted the defendant showing Rolex watches to Kirker and asking about an appraisal to establish the value of one of the watches and to confirm the authenticity of the diamonds on it.

An arrest warrant for the defendant was issued in February, 2017. The defendant was located in Arizona and arrested in November, 2017. He was charged with burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit larceny in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and larceny in the second degree.

At trial, the state offered the photograph of the Daytona watch found in Dijon Edwards’ phone into evidence. The defendant did not object. David identified the handwriting on the photograph as his own and again identified the Daytona watch in the photograph as his. The Daytona watch itself was admitted into evidence. In his testimony, David also identified one of the watches in the American Diamond Exchange surveillance video

as his Rolex Datejust. Neither of the two stolen Datejust watches was recovered by the police.

On June 19, 2018, the jury found the defendant guilty of larceny in the second degree by receiving stolen property, but found the defendant not guilty of the other charges. The court accepted the jury's verdict and imposed a total effective sentence of eight years of incarceration. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The defendant first claims that the state presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the stolen property in his possession exceeded $10,000, or that he knew that one of the watches in his possession had been stolen. We disagree.

The standard of review for such claims 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 [finder of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ... We note that the [finder of fact] 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 [finder of fact] to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the [finder of fact] 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams , 200 Conn. App. 427, 447, 238 A.3d 797, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 974, 240 A.3d 676 (2020).

The following additional facts inform our analysis. On the afternoon before the break-in, Samantha sold Percocet

pills to Dijon Edwards. Marcel was present during the transaction. In order to complete the transaction, Samantha retrieved the pills from her purse, and while she did this, the contents of her purse were visible to Dijon Edwards and Marcel. During the break-in that night, the intruders threatened the victims with knives, yelling, "Where's the purse?" The intruders ultimately departed with Samantha's purse. Following the break-in, she told police that her purse contained three Rolex watches valued at $6000, $4000, and $8500.

Samantha suspected one of the intruders was related to Dijon Edwards. Dijon Edwards was a frequent customer of Samantha, and Dijon's husband, Terrance Edwards, had sold Samantha cocaine in the past. The day after the break-in, the victims contacted Marcel in the hope that he could provide more information about the intruders. Marcel shared with the victims several Facebook photographs of individuals whom he believed may have been involved in the break-in. These Facebook photographs depicted the defendant and his brother. Believing the individuals in the Facebook photographs were the intruders, the victims shared their suspicions with Nivakoff on January 22, 2017. The victims went to the police department to give statements, at which time they were shown photographic arrays. Both victims identified the defendant and his brother Terrance Edwards as the intruders from their recollection of the event.

The police detained the defendant near his brother's residence. The police found a business card from American Diamond Exchange on the defendant's person. On

the business card were the words "Rolex Watch Appraisal $250 Call for Apt." Nivakoff interviewed the defendant after the police detained him. The defendant stated to her that he was not on good terms with his brother but planned to meet him for drinks that day. The defendant explained to Nivakoff that he had acquired the American Diamond Exchange card during a visit to the store concerning a Michael Kors watch he was wearing. When speaking to Nivakoff, the defendant also made a vague reference to "people being able to identify people from Facebook," which Nivakoff found odd.³

Nivakoff visited American Diamond Exchange and obtained an audiovisual surveillance video depicting the defendant and another man entering the store.⁴ The second man handed the defendant two watches, which he handed to the clerk, Kirker. One of the watches had a broken band and was referred to by the defendant as a Rolex. The other watch contained what appeared to be diamonds. The defendant stated to Kirker that his Rolex was broken. Kirker responded that David Schnee, another employee, might be able to look at it when he was in, as he was the "only one who knows about Rolexes." The defendant then asked her if the store had a diamond checker, showing her the second watch. He indicated that he wanted to make sure the diamonds were real, commenting that there were a lot of diamonds on the watch. Kirker took the watch into a back room to look at the...