State v. Green

Decision Date06 March 2001
Citation774 A.2d 157,62 Conn. App. 217
Parties(Conn.App. 2001) STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CHARLES GREEN AC 18369
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals

Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Denise B. Smoker, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and Elpedio Vitale, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Lavery, C. J., and Foti and Landau, Js.

Foti, J.

The defendant, Charles Green, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§§§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a (a), murder as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§§§ 53a-8 and 53a-54a (a) and criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-217c.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt of conspiracy to commit murder and murder as an accessory, (2) the court improperly instructed the jury not to consider the effect that smoking marijuana had on an eyewitness to the crime when the eyewitness admitted to smoking five marijuana cigarettes prior to making his observations, (3) the court improperly allowed the state to present evidence of an alleged prior crime, (4) the court improperly instructed the jury on the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and (5) the court improperly allowed the state to exercise a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror, who was black, when the state's reason for excusing the prospective juror was insufficient and pretextual. We reverse the judgment of the trial court in part and affirm it in part.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. Tyrese Jenkins, Hopeton Wiggan, David D., Kenny Cloud and Brucie B. were members of a gang2 named after a housing project located in the Fair Haven section of New Haven. On October 7, 1996, at approximately 11:15 p.m., the gang went to a housing project, also located in New Haven and referred to as "the ghetto," to settle a dispute with the defendant and others, who were members of a rival gang that resided there.3

Cloud stayed in the car, while Jenkins, Wiggan, David D. and Brucie B., with guns at their sides, went looking for the defendant. The four men entered the housing project through a hole in a fence and, as they approached, they noticed the defendant along with three others, namely, Duane Clark, Bobby "B.O." Cook and Ryan Baldwin, standing and talking near a green electrical box. When the defendant and the others saw the gang members approaching, Clark exclaimed, "Shoot the motherfuckers," and a gunfight ensued.

When the first shots were fired, Wiggan and Brucie B. ran for cover behind a dumpster. Jenkins ran diagonally across a parking lot located in the complex. Both sides exchanged a barrage of gunfire. As Wiggan, Brucie B. and Jenkins retreated from the complex, Jenkins was shot in the leg. Jenkins hobbled quickly away from the complex, but another bullet struck him and he collapsed. Wiggan and Brucie B. went back into the complex and found Jenkins sitting up against a wall. The two picked up Jenkins and carried him to the car. Cloud, David D., Brucie B. and Wiggan took Jenkins to Yale New Haven Hospital, where he died from his injuries.

Leroy Townsend, a local man, witnessed the beginning of the disturbance as he stood near the electrical box, smoking marijuana.4 At trial, Townsend testified that he had heard Clark say "shoot the motherfuckers" and that he saw the defendant shoot Jenkins.

Arkady Katsnelson, a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy on the victim. Katsnelson testified that Jenkins suffered two bullet wounds, one of which was fatal. One bullet, a nine millimeter round, entered the lower front portion of Jenkins' right leg and exited through the back of it. The other bullet, a.44 caliber round, which caused the fatal wound, entered through the upper right side of Jenkins' chest just below his collarbone and then penetrated the chest wall, the right lung, the heart, the diaphragm, part of the liver, the organs of the abdomen and eventually lodged in some soft tissue located in his abdominal cavity. We will provide additional facts as needed.

I.
A.

The defendant first claims that the evidence presented by the state was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder pursuant to §§§§ 53a-485 and 53a-54a (a).6 The state concedes, and we agree, that Clark, who was tried with the defendant, may not be considered as a coconspirator.7 Because the state failed to prove at trial that the defendant had agreed with someone else to murder Jenkins, the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction under §§§§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a (a). See State v. Booth, 250 Conn. 611, 657±n58, 737 A.2d 404 (1999), cert. denied, U.S., 120 S. Ct. 1568, 146 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2000).

At the close of the state's case-in-chief and again at the close of all of the evidence, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the basis of the insufficiency of the evidence. The court denied both motions. After the verdict, and again during the sentencing proceeding, the defendant made several oral motions for acquittal. The court denied each of these motions as well.

"The standard of review employed in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well settled. [W]e 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 [trier of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... State v. James, 237 Conn. 390, 435, 678 A.2d 1338 (1996). In this process of review, it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct.... It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence.... State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 510, 668 A.2d 1288 (1995).

"While the [trier of fact] 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 [proven] beyond a reasonable doubt.... If it is reasonable and logical for the [trier] to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the [trier] 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.... State v. Newsome, 238 Conn. 588, 617, 682 A.2d 972 (1996). Moreover, [i]n evaluating evidence that could yield contrary inferences, the [trier of fact] is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant's innocence. State v. DeJesus, 236 Conn. 189, 195, 672 A.2d 488 (1996). As we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt; State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 693, 646 A.2d 147 (1994); State v. Patterson, [229 Conn. 328, 332, 641 A.2d 123 (1994)]; State v. Little, 194 Conn. 665, 671±n72, 485 A.2d 913 (1984); nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the [trier], would have resulted in an acquittal.... On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Weask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [trier's] verdict of guilty.... State v. DeJesus, supra, 196; see also State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 134, 646 A.2d 169 (1994)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 177±n78, 728 A.2d 466, cert. denied, U.S., 120 S. Ct. 152, 145 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1999). On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant conspired to murder Jenkins.

"To establish the crime of conspiracy under §§ 53a-48... it must be shown that an agreement was made between two or more persons to engage in conduct constituting a crime and that the agreement was followed by an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy by any one of the conspirators. The state must also show intent on the part of the accused that conduct constituting a crime be performed.... Further, the prosecution must show both that the conspirators intended to agree and that they intended to commit the elements of the underlying offense." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Booth, supra, 250 Conn. 657±n58.

"To establish the crime of conspiracy [to commit murder... the state must show] that an agreement was made between two or more persons to engage in conduct constituting [the crime of murder] and that the agreement was followed by an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy by any one of the conspirators.... While the state must prove an agreement [to commit murder], the existence of a formal agreement between the conspirators need not be proved because [i]t is only in rare instances that conspiracy may be established by proof of an express agreement to unite to accomplish an unlawful purpose.... [T]he requisite agreement or confederation may be inferred from proof of the separate acts of the individuals accused as coconspirators and from the circumstances surrounding the commission of these acts.... Further, [c]onspiracy can seldom be proved by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the activities of the accused persons." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Torres, 242...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • State v. Bennett, 18606.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 5 Febrero 2013
    ...466 (2003); State v. Ashe, 74 Conn.App. 511, 513, 812 A.2d 194, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 949, 817 A.2d 108 (2003); State v. Green, 62 Conn.App. 217, 219–20, 774 A.2d 157 (2001), aff'd, 261 Conn. 653, 804 A.2d 810 (2002). In cases lacking such proof, the defendant otherwise actively participa......
  • State v. Abraham
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 24 Julio 2001
    ...and that they intended to commit the elements of the underlying offense." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Green, 62 Conn. App. 217, 223, 774 A.2d 157 (2001), quoting State v. Booth, 250 Conn. 611, 657-58, 737 A.2d 404 (1999), cert. denied sub nom. Brown v. Connecticut, 529 U.S.......
  • State v. Franklin
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 29 Diciembre 2015
    ...generally relevant to show that the accused had the means to commit the crime." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Green, 62 Conn.App. 217, 240, 774 A.2d 157 (2001), aff'd, 261 Conn. 653, 804 A.2d 810 (2002). "The state does not have to connect a weapon directly to the defendant a......
  • State v. Bennett
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 5 Febrero 2013
    ...(2003); State v. Ashe, 74 Conn. App. 511, 513, 812 A.2d 194, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 949, 817 A.2d 108 (2003); State v. Green, 62 Conn. App. 217, 219-20, 774 A.2d 157 (2001), affd, 261 Conn. 653, 804 A.2d 810 (2002). In cases lacking such proof, the defendant otherwise actively participated......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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