State v. Kari, 14450
| Decision Date | 23 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 14450,14450 |
| Citation | 222 Conn. 539,608 A.2d 92 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 75 Ed. Law Rep. 808 STATE of Connecticut v. Nelson KARI. |
John R. Williams, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, State's Atty., and Margaret Luchansky, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, GLASS, COVELLO and BORDEN, JJ.
In this criminal appeal, the defendant, Nelson Kari, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction of unlawful removal or alteration of records in violation of General Statutes § 53-153. 1 The Appellate Court concluded that his conviction should be affirmed. State v. Kari, 26 Conn.App. 286, 600 A.2d 1374 (1991). We granted certification to permit the defendant to appeal solely on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a reasonable finding that the defendant had acted "corruptly" within the meaning of the statute. 2
The opinion of the Appellate Court reports in full the facts that the jury might reasonably have found to support the conviction of the defendant. The defendant contests the reasonableness of an inference of a corrupt motive that a jury might have drawn from evidence establishing that: (1) without the authority to do so, he signed a contract for the purchase of a computer system; (2) in response to an official inquiry, he lied about having signed this contract; and (3) he thereafter destroyed the contract and documentation relating thereto.
After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The certified issue was fully considered in the opinion of the Appellate Court; id., at 292, 600 A.2d 1374; and it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained. See State v. Soltes, 215 Conn. 614, 615, 577 A.2d 717 (1990); State v. Timmons, 204 Conn. 120, 121, 526 A.2d 1340 (1987); State v. Marshall, 199 Conn. 244, 506 A.2d 1035 (1986).
The appeal is dismissed.
1 General Statutes § 53-153 provides in relevant part: "Any person who, wilfully and corruptly, takes away, alters, mutilates or destroys any book, record, document, archive or other property in the possession or custody or under the control of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roy
...cert. denied, 223 Conn. 919, 614 A.2d 826 (1992); State v. Kari, 26 Conn.App. 286, 291, 600 A.2d 1374 (1991), appeal dismissed, 222 Conn. 539, 608 A.2d 92 (1992). 13 Thus, the defendant's claim with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence at the completion of the state's case is not revi......
-
State v. Glenn
...cert. denied, 223 Conn. 919, 614 A.2d 826 (1992); State v. Kari, 26 Conn.App. 286, 291, 600 A.2d 1374 (1991), appeal dismissed, 222 Conn. 539, 608 A.2d 92 (1992)." State v. Wolff, 29 Conn.App. 524, 527, 616 A.2d 1143 (1992). Although the waiver rule has drawn criticism; see State v. Booker,......
-
State v. DesLaurier
...the corpus delicti." (Citations omitted). State v. Kari, 26 Conn.App. 286, 289, 600 A.2d 1374 (1991), appeal dismissed, 222 Conn. 539, 608 A.2d 92 (1992). In Connecticut, the corpus delicti rule has two distinct formulations. First, where the crime charged encompasses a specific kind of los......
-
State v. Lemoine, 11701
...cert. denied, 223 Conn. 919, 614 A.2d 826 (1992); State v. Kari, 26 Conn.App. 286, 291, 600 A.2d 1374 (1991), appeal dismissed, 222 Conn. 539, 608 A.2d 92 (1992). 8 Thus, the defendant's claim with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence at the completion of the state's case is not review......