State v. Nunes
Decision Date | 02 July 2002 |
Docket Number | (SC 16513). |
Citation | 800 A.2d 1160,260 Conn. 649 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JOAO Q. NUNES |
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js. Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state's attorney, and David Zagaja, assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
Alinor C. Sterling, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Ira B. Grudberg, special public defender, for the appellee (defendant).
The state appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the defendant's conviction on charges of assault in the second degree and illegal distribution of a controlled substance. The state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim1 was administered particular drugs, namely, temazepam, chloral hydrate or a combination of the two. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant, Joao Q. Nunes, was convicted, after a jury trial, of one count of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a),2 one count of illegal possession of a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (c),3 and one count of illegal distribution of a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (b).4 The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court contending, inter alia, that the evidence on the assault and illegal distribution charges was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim actually had ingested temazepam, chloral hydrate or a combination of the two.5 The Appellate Court reversed the defendant's conviction on the assault and illegal distribution charges, and remanded the case to the trial court with direction to render a judgment of acquittal on those charges. State v. Nunes, 61 Conn. App. 668, 683, 767 A.2d 181 (2001). This certified appeal followed.6
The underlying facts, as set forth by the Appellate Court, are as follows. "Between May and September, 1993, the victim7 worked as a computer graphics artist with an East Hartford graphics firm. The firm had a contract with the Hartford police department to prepare a slide presentation about community policing. The defendant, a Hartford police officer since November 26, 1979, worked with the victim between May and August, 1993.
State v. Nunes, supra, 61 Conn. App. 670-74. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction on the assault and illegal distribution charges because, in the Appellate Court's view, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant administered chloral hydrate, or temazepam, or both, to the victim. Specifically, the state contends that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant administered chloral hydrate, or temazepam, or a combination thereof, to the victim. We agree that the evidence was sufficient for the jury reasonably to conclude that the defendant administered chloral hydrate to the victim.10
Before reaching the merits of this issue, we briefly address the state's claim that, with respect to the assault charge, it was required to prove only that the defendant administered, without the consent of the victim, "a drug, substance or preparation capable of producing [stupor, unconsciousness or other physical impairment or injury]"; General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (4); not that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. James G.
.... . . for other purposes, such as to prove knowledge, intent, motive, and common scheme or design . . . ." State v. Nunes, 260 Conn. 649, 684, 800 A.2d 1160 (2002); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 4-5 (b); State v. Merriam, supra, 660. Accordingly, we have established a two-pronged test for det......
-
Santos v. Comm'r of Corr.
...cert. denied, 291 Conn. 917, 970 A.2d 728 (2009). An expert's opinion may not be based on surmise or conjecture. State v. Nunes , 260 Conn. 649, 672–74, 800 A.2d 1160 (2002). Finally, his description and explanation of the data relating to percentages of false allegations and recantation ra......
-
State v. Fernando V.
...430, 434 n.5, 493 A.2d 865 (1985) ; we "ordinarily do not review claims not raised" before the Appellate Court. State v. Nunes , 260 Conn. 649, 658, 800 A.2d 1160 (2002). Put differently, "a claim that has been abandoned during the initial appeal to the Appellate Court cannot subsequently b......
-
Fajardo v. Boston Scientific Corporation
...specific dangerous features of the Obtryx would reduce the risk of danger presented by that product. See, e.g., State v. Nunes , 260 Conn. 649, 675, 800 A.2d 1160 (2002) (substance of experts' testimony was held sufficient to establish causation to reasonable degree of medical certainty, de......