State v. Moore
| Decision Date | 09 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 3315,3315 |
| Citation | 3 Conn.App. 503,489 A.2d 1069 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. James MOORE. |
Robert F. Field, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
James M. Bernardi, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).
Before BORDEN, SPALLONE and DALY, JJ.
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of burglary in the third degree; General Statutes § 53a-103; conspiracy to commit burglary in the third degree; General Statutes § 53a-48; larceny in the third degree; General Statutes § 53a-124; and conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree; General Statutes § 53a-48. On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
State v. Davis, 3 Conn.App. 359, 488 A.2d 837 (1985). It is the function of the jury to weigh conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Shipman, 195 Conn. 160, 165, 486 A.2d 1130 (1985). If there is any way that the jury might have reconciled the conflicting testimony presented to them, we will not disturb their verdict. State v. Myers, 193 Conn. 457, 473, 479 A.2d 199 (1984).
We have examined the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and conclude that there is no merit to the defendant's claim.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Osman
...jurisprudence has traditionally entrusted to the jury." State v. Gaynor, supra, 182 Conn. at 504, 438 A.2d 749; State v. Moore, 3 Conn.App. 503, 504, 489 A.2d 1069 (1985); State v. Nelson, 38 Conn.Sup. 374, 376, 448 A.2d 219 (1982). The store clerk and her husband testified that the robber ......
- State v. Millhouse
-
State v. Mims, (AC 19694)
...reconciled the conflicting testimony presented to them, we will not disturb their verdict." (Citation omitted.) State v. Moore, 3 Conn. App. 503, 504, 489 A.2d 1069 (1985). The cumulative impact of the evidence in this case sufficiently enabled the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt......