State v. Monk

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtBefore PETERS; SHEA
Citation503 A.2d 591,198 Conn. 430
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Croney MONK.
Decision Date28 January 1986

Page 591

503 A.2d 591
198 Conn. 430
STATE of Connecticut
Croney MONK.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued Dec. 11, 1985.
Decided Jan. 28, 1986.

Clinton L.A. Wright, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

Judith Rossi, Sp. Asst. State's Atty., with whom were Julia D. Dewey, Asst. State's Atty., and, on brief, Arnold Markle, State's Atty., and Robert J. Devlin, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).


SHEA, Justice.

After a trial to a jury, the defendant, Croney Monk, was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a) 1, [198 Conn. 431] and of unlawful

Page 592

restraint in the first degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95(a). 2 He was sentenced by the court to serve concurrent sentences for an effective term of not less than four years nor more than ten years in the custody of the commissioner of correction. From this judgment the defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for both crimes. We find no error.

From the evidence presented at trial, the jury could reasonably have found the following facts: On December 11, 1980, the defendant was a patron in the Flaming Knights Club in New Haven. Although the victim was also present, the two did not converse while at the club. Later in the evening, the victim left the club and began to walk home. The defendant, then in his car, pulled alongside the victim and asked her where he could purchase cigarettes. The defendant then got out of his car, approached the victim and asked her to accompany him while he got some cigarettes. When she refused, the defendant forced her to enter the car and sit in the front seat between him and his cousin, Thurman Anthony. The defendant then drove to an all-night convenience store, where he left the victim in the car with his cousin while he purchased cigarettes.

The defendant then drove to East Rock Park where he told the victim that he wanted to "have some fun" with her. The victim refused his advances and exited from the car. The defendant forced her back into the [198 Conn. 432] car. The defendant and his cousin struggled with the victim and pulled her into the backseat. The defendant choked her while his cousin removed her pants. The defendant said that he would "tighten up on choking" if the victim resisted. The defendant then had sexual intercourse with her while his cousin held her down. The defendant's cousin also had sexual intercourse with the victim. When the cousin wanted to have intercourse for a second time the defendant said, "No, you know, that's it. You know, she's not giving it up willingly. Just cut it, you know, stop."

The defendant claims that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that he used force to compel the victim to engage in sexual intercourse, as is required by General Statutes § 53a-70(a), and (2) that he restrained the victim under circumstances which exposed her to a substantial risk of physical injury, as is required by General Statutes § 53a-95(a). At the close of the state's case, the defendant properly raised these claims by a motion for judgment of acquittal. Essentially, the defendant claims that the complainant consented to the sexual act and that her uncorroborated testimony concerning the defendant's use of force was not adequate to support the jury's verdict. We disagree.

"The standard that applies when a jury verdict is challenged on the ground of insufficient evidence is well established. 'When a verdict is challenged because of insufficient evidence, the issue is whether the jury could have reasonably...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Roy D. L., SC 20152
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 28, 2021
    ...that a victim's testimony 18 need not be corroborated to be sufficient evidence to support a conviction"); see also State v. Monk, 198 Conn. 430, 433, 503 A.2d 591 (1986). In the present case, the trial court credited R's testimony and discredited the contradictory testimony provided by the......
  • State v. Warren, No. 4450
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • June 14, 1988
    ...most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict.' State v. Carter, 196 Conn. 36, 44, 490 A.2d 1000 (1985); see State v. Monk, 198 Conn. 430, 432, 503 A.2d 591 (1986). Every element of the crime charged must be proved, and although it is in the province of the jury to draw logical inferences......
  • State v. Hufford, No. 12954
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 1, 1987
    ...of force proven, the evidence demonstrated either violence or some other form of physical Page 871 coercion. See, e.g., State v. Monk, 198 Conn. 430, 503 A.2d 591 (1986) (defendant forced victim into car, struggled with her, choked her and sexually assaulted her while another held her down)......
  • State v. Salamon, No. 17610.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 1, 2008
    ...of evidentiary insufficiency indicates that most such cases involve the use of physical force or intimidation. See, e.g., State v. Monk, 198 Conn. 430, 431-32, 503 A.2d 591 (1986) (defendant, along with his cousin, forced victim to enter car, drove her to park, forced her to return to car w......
  • 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