State v. Sanchez, 17336

• Decision Date: 25 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 17336,17336
• Citation: 50 Conn.App. 145,718 A.2d 52
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Jorge SANCHEZ.

Page 52

718 A.2d 52

50 Conn.App. 145

STATE of Connecticut v. Jorge SANCHEZ.

No. 17336.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 24, 1998.

Decided Aug. 25, 1998.

Elizabeth M. Inkster, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).

Susann E. Gill, Senior Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, State's Attorney, and Linda N. Howe, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellee (State).

Before EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, C.J., and LANDAU and SCHALLER, JJ.

LANDAU, Judge.

The defendant, Jorge Sanchez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), ¹ conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 ² and 53a-54a, and larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122 (a)(3). ³ On appeal the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motions for acquittal on the basis of insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) refused to give an accomplice and a special credibility instruction concerning the testimony of the state's informant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant had been a member of the Latin Kings gang from approximately 1989 until 1993 when he was expelled for breaking gang rules. He sought help from his cousin, Antonio Rigual, in getting back in the gang. Rigual asked his roommate, Edwardo Ortiz, what the defendant could do to regain his membership in the gang. Ortiz asked Emanuel Roman and Richard Morales, the local gang leaders, for their advice. Roman and Morales informed Ortiz that the only way the defendant could regain his membership was to kill either Louis Rodriguez, who had had an affair with Roman's wife, or the victim, Angel Soto, who knew of the affair but failed to report it. Ortiz did not relay this information to the defendant until the defendant asked Ortiz how he could regain his membership. Because the defendant did not know the victim, Ortiz pointed him out.

With the help of others, the defendant stole a red van from Devoe Paints and painted it with brown primer. On the evening of April 8, 1994, the defendant, Jesus Valentin and an individual known as "Black" drove through Bridgeport in the van looking for the victim. They saw the victim leave the Savoy Club and followed his vehicle until it stopped outside a restaurant. When the van stopped next to the victim's vehicle, the defendant and Black shot him repeatedly and fatally.

After the shooting, the defendant, Valentin and Black attended Rigual's birthday party given by Ortiz. The defendant told Ortiz and Rigual that he had just killed the victim. Rigual put his necklace of colored beads on the defendant, a sign of gang membership. The day after the murder, Ortiz and the defendant's brother purchased flares intending to burn the van, which was recovered before it was burned.

During their investigation, the police obtained statements from Ortiz, Valentin and Albert Aponte, each of whom recounted substantially the same facts about the victim's death. At trial, however, Valentin and Aponte recanted their statements. ⁴ Aponte claimed that his statement was a fabrication that Ortiz had told him to give. At the close of the state's evidence, and again at the end of all the evidence, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal as to all charges. The trial court denied both motions. Additional facts will be noted as necessary.

I

The defendant's first claim is that there was insufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. More specifically, the defendant claims that because the state's informant, Ortiz, was impeached on numerous grounds, there was no evidence by which the jury could reasonably have concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ⁵ We are not persuaded.

The standards by which we review claims of insufficient evidence are well established. "When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, our courts apply a two-prong test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the jury reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Perry, 48 Conn.App. 193, 196, 709 A.2d 564, cert. denied, 244 Conn. 931, 711 A.2d 729 (1998).

"It is within the province of the jury to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the facts proven.... The jury may draw reasonable inferences based on other inferences drawn from the evidence presented.... Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.... We note that the probative force of the evidence is not diminished because it consists, in whole or in part, of circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence.... It has been repeatedly stated that there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence so far as probative force is concerned.... It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence.... [T]he inquiry into whether the record evidence would support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence ... established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.... In doing so, we keep in mind that [w]e have not had the jury's opportunity to observe the conduct, demeanor, and attitude of the witnesses and to gauge their credibility." (Emphasis in original; citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Radzvilowicz, 47 Conn.App. 1, 17-18, 703 A.2d 767, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 955, 704 A.2d 806 (1997).

"Moreover, [i]n evaluating evidence that could yield contrary inferences, the [jury] is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant's innocence.... As we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt ... nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the [jury], would have resulted in an acquittal.... On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the jury's verdict of guilty. Furthermore, [t]his court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the jury if there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Torres, 242 Conn. 485, 490-91, 698 A.2d 898 (1997).

"It is also the absolute right and responsibility of the jury to weigh conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.... Thus, the issue of the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime is peculiarly an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury....

"The test for determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict is thus whether the [trier of fact] could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 46 Conn.App. 600, 608, 700 A.2d 91, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 935, 702 A.2d 642 (1997).

The defendant claims there was insufficient evidence because Ortiz, the state's informant, was its primary witness. Ortiz was biased because he had avoided federal prosecution by agreeing to provide both state and federal authorities with information about the criminal activities of the gang and that Aponte and Valentin recanted the sworn statements they had given to police.

Our review of the transcript reveals that Ortiz, at the time of his testimony, was incarcerated in a federal detention facility in Rhode Island. From his association with the gang, Ortiz knew that the defendant used an Uzi and Black used a .38 caliber firearm to kill the victim. The shell casings and bullets found at the scene or removed from the victim were from those types of weapons. At a time subsequent to the murder, Ortiz spoke to the defendant, Black and Valentin about the murder because there was a rumor on the streets that Ortiz had killed the victim. Ortiz thought one of them had talked about the murder.

While he was being held in Bridgeport on April 10, 1995, Aponte spoke with members of the Bridgeport police department about the victim's murder. He also spoke to the Bridgeport police on May 30, 1995, and gave them a tape-recorded statement, which was transcribed and signed under penalty of perjury. That statement was consistent with Ortiz' version of the murder. In addition, Aponte saw the defendant and another person painting the van used in the shooting, and he saw the Uzi used by the defendant prior to the murder. He was privy to a conversation in which Roman told the defendant to kill the victim or be killed himself, and he was present when the defendant was accepted back into the gang. He also identified a photograph of the defendant. He did not tell the police that his statement was given according to Ortiz' direction. While Ortiz was incarcerated in Rhode Island, Aponte visited him and Ortiz gave him his car.

On June 19, 1995,...