State v. Roy
Decision Date | 18 July 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 12281,12281 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John ROY. |
Daniel S. Blinn, Sp. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Nancy L. Gillespie, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were John T. Redway, State's Atty. and Timothy Liston, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).
Before LAVERY, LANDAU and HEIMAN, JJ.
This matter is before us on remand from our Supreme Court. State v. Roy, 233 Conn. 211, 658 A.2d 566 (1995). The defendant originally appealed to this court from a judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-103, 1 as a lesser included offense of burglary in the first degree; General Statutes § 53a-101(a)(1); larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122(a), 2 stealing a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-212 3 and conspiracy to commit the crimes with which he was charged in violation of General Statutes § 53a-48. 4
In his original appeal to us, the defendant asserted that the trial court improperly (1) refused to suppress testimony concerning statements made by him to the police in violation of his Miranda 5 rights, (2) denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and (3) convicted him of both larceny and stealing a firearm. State v. Roy, 34 Conn.App. 751, 753, 643 A.2d 289 (1994), rev'd, 233 Conn. 211, 658 A.2d 566 (1995). We resolved the first and third issues; id., at 756-64, 766-72, 643 A.2d 289, but declined to afford him review on the second issue on the ground that he had failed to preserve properly his claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. Id., at 764-66, 643 A.2d 289; 6
Our Supreme Court granted certification limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant was not entitled to review of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction?" State v. Roy, 231 Conn. 918, 648 A.2d 166 (1994). The Supreme Court concluded that "[i]n the circumstances of this case," the defendant is entitled to review of his unpreserved claim as to the existence of sufficient evidence to support his conviction. State v. Roy, supra, 233 Conn. at 212, 658 A.2d 566. The Supreme Court reversed this court and remanded the case to us with direction to review the merits of the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction. Id., at 213, 658 A.2d 566.
We are persuaded that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the conviction of the defendant.
State v. Roy, supra, 34 Conn.App. at 753-56, 643 A.2d 289.
Subsequent to his arrest, the defendant was interviewed by Detective Marsha Youngquist and Detective Patrick Gaffney of the Connecticut state police. 7 During the course of the interview, Youngquist stated to the defendant that she knew that he and Young had committed the burglary at Teddy's. In response to this statement, the defendant nodded his head and said, "Yes." 8 Furthermore, Youngquist asked the defendant what he and Young had taken from Teddy's, and the defendant responded, "A lot of guns." The defendant also told Youngquist that it was Young's idea to break into the gun shop, and that they had used Young's pickup truck to drive to the gun shop. Finally, the defendant accurately identified the date and time period during which the burglary had occurred.
The defendant's attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is premised on his claim that the evidence produced by the state failed to establish that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime. The defendant posits as his basis for this claim a three pronged argument: (1) that the only evidence offered by the state to support the claim that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime was the testimony of Young and Youngquist, (2) that the defendant's response of "Yes" to Youngquist's statement that she knew that he and Young had broken into Teddy's was vague and ambiguous, and that the other statements made by the defendant to Youngquist "fail[ed] to address the elements of the crimes [with] which he was charged," and (3) that no reasonable jury could have believed the testimony of Young. We are not persuaded.
We employ a two part analysis in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a criminal conviction. State v. Salz, 226 Conn. 20, 31, 627 A.2d 862 (1993). (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
Our review of the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict satisfies us that the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime on the evening in question, and that he actively participated in carrying out the crimes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ingram, 14844
...State v. Harris, 227 Conn. 751, 758, 631 A.2d 309 (1993); State v. Smith, 138 Conn. 196, 201, 82 A.2d 816 (1951); State v. Roy, 38 Conn.App. 481, 488, 662 A.2d 799 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 902, 674 A.2d 1333 (1996); State v. Rivera, 32 Conn.App. 193, 201-202, 628 A.2d 996, cert. deni......
-
State v. Faria
...the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Roy, 38 Conn.App. 481, 488, 662 A.2d 799 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 902, 674 A.2d 1333 (1996); State v. Coleman, 35 Conn.App. 279, 293-94, 646 A.2d 213, cert. de......
-
Jenkins v. Commissioner of Correction
...may be intelligent and their conclusions correct.'" State v. Little, 194 Conn. 665, 674, 485 A.2d 913 (1984); State v. Roy, 38 Conn. App. 481, 489, 662 A.2d 799 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 902, 674 A.2d 1333 (1996). In viewing the prosecutor's misstatement in the context of the entire t......
-
State v. Otto, 16180
...the assessment, the court must first "construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict." State v. Roy, 38 Conn.App. 481, 488, 662 A.2d 799 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 902, 674 A.2d 1333 (1996). Second, the court must determine "whether upon the facts so constr......