State v. Monk
Citation | 503 A.2d 591,198 Conn. 430 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Decision Date | 28 January 1986 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Croney MONK. |
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).
Before PETERS, C.J., and ARTHUR H. HEALEY, SHEA, DANNEHY and CALLAHAN, JJ.
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, and of unlawful 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 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,
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.
State v. Carter, 196 Conn. 36, 44, 490 A.2d 1000 (1985). Each essential element of the crime charged must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Gaynor, 182 Conn. 501, 503, 438 A.2d 749 (1980).
State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255, 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084, 104 S.Ct. 1455, 79 L.Ed.2d 772, reh. denied, 466 U.S. 954, 104 S.Ct. 2163, 80 L.Ed.2d 547 (1984). State v. Penland, 174 Conn. 153, 158, 384 A.2d 356, cert. denied, 436 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 2237, 56 L.Ed.2d 404 (1978).
The issue of the "use of force" is a question of fact for the jury. State v. Kish, 186 Conn. 757, 766-67, 443 A.2d 1274 (1982). The victim's testimony, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had compelled the victim to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force. The victim testified that the defendant forced her into the car, struggled with her, choked her, and then sexually assaulted her while his cousin held her down. Although the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty on the basis of the victim's testimony alone; State v. Brice, 186 Conn. 449, 458 n. 10, 442 A.2d 906 (1982); her allegations were supported by the testimony of various police officers and a rape crisis counselor, who all testified to the victim's constancy of accusation. See State v. Brigandi, 186 Conn. 521, 525-27, 442 A.2d 927 (1982). The victim's recital of the defendant's statements during the incident also buttresses the jury's conclusion that the defendant was aware that the victim's participation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Roy D. L.
... ... See, e.g., State v ... Stephen J. R. , 309 Conn. 586, 595, 72 A.3d 379 (2013) ... ("it is well established that a victim's testimony ... 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 ... defendant, two of his former girlfriends, and his sister. The ... trial ... ...
-
State v. Roy D. L.
...that a victim's testimony 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 d......
-
State v. Warren, 4450
... ... State v. Baskins, 12 Conn.App. 313, 316, 530 A.2d 663 (1987). 'The evidence must be given a construction 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 from the facts proven, they may not resort to speculation." State v. Robinson, 14 Conn.App. 40, 42, 539 A.2d 606 (1988) ... ...
-
State v. Coleman
...find that the defendant restrained the victim under circumstances that posed a substantial risk of physical injury. State v. Monk, 198 Conn. 430, 434, 503 A.2d 591 (1986); State v. Fields, 31 Conn.App. 312, 331, 624 A.2d 1165, cert. denied, 226 Conn. 916, 628 A.2d 989 (1993); see also State......