State v. Monk

• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: Before PETERS; SHEA
• Citation: 503 A.2d 591,198 Conn. 430
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Croney MONK.
• Decision Date: 28 January 1986

Page 591

503 A.2d 591 198 Conn. 430 STATE of Connecticut
v.
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).

Before PETERS, C.J., and ARTHUR H. HEALEY, SHEA, DANNEHY and CALLAHAN, JJ.

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...