State v. Goode
Decision Date | 05 October 2021 |
Docket Number | AC 43841 |
Citation | 262 A.3d 1028,208 Conn.App. 198 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Gerry L. GOODE |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Brian D. Russell, for the appellant (defendant).
Meryl Gersz, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese L. Walcott, state's attorney, and Donna Mary Parker, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Prescott, Alexander and DiPentima, Js.
The defendant, Gerry L. Goode, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of criminal damage to a landlord's property in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-117e.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the state presented insufficient evidence to establish the element of specific intent. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On September 2, 2014, the defendant entered into a residential lease with the victim, Daniel C. Nolan, with respect to property located at 26 Whitney Circle in Windsor. The property was in good condition at the time the lease commenced, and the defendant was obligated to maintain the property in a clean and safe condition.
In December, 2017, the defendant called the victim to request reimbursement for a repair to the furnace. The victim agreed to pay the defendant but also indicated that he wanted to inspect the property. The defendant initially demurred, but after several delays, he acquiesced to the victim's request. The victim went to the property at the end of December, 2017, to discover that the property was "very much trashed [and] destroyed." After some discussion, the victim informed the defendant that he wanted to return with a home improvement contractor to estimate the damage to the property. The defendant refused to allow the victim subsequent access to the property, so when the victim and the contractor eventually returned, a police officer had to accompany them. The victim also commenced eviction proceedings, which ultimately resulted in the defendant leaving the property on July 11, 2018.
Following the defendant's departure, the victim took numerous photographs depicting the damage to the entirety of the property. The victim contacted the police and Officer Michael Tustin commenced an investigation. Tustin described the entire property as "very damaged" and noted the "ripped up" carpets, the very strong smell of urine and feces, missing pieces of sheetrock from the walls, exposed electrical cable, the presence of garbage throughout, and significant water damage. The victim needed professional services to restore the property, which took approximately eight and one-half months. The restoration cost $25,600.
The state charged the defendant with criminal damage of a landlord's property in the first degree in violation of § 53a-117e, and larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125b. Following a two day trial, the jury found the defendant guilty with respect to the former and not guilty as to the latter. The court imposed a sentence of two and one-half years of incarceration, execution suspended, and three years of probation. This appeal followed.
The defendant's sole claim on appeal is that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence that he specifically intended to damage the victim's property. "Our Supreme Court has noted that [a] party challenging the validity of the jury's verdict on grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support such a result carries a difficult burden. ... In particular, before court may overturn a jury verdict for insufficient evidence, it must conclude that no reasonable jury could arrive at the conclusion the jury did. ... Although the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense ... each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ...
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stephenson , 207 Conn. App. 154, 164–65, 263 A.3d 101 (2021).
We agree with the parties that § 53a-117e is a specific intent crime, because it requires, inter alia, that a tenant intentionally damage a landlord's property in an amount exceeding $1500. See, e.g., General Statutes § 53a-3.2 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial