State v. Sargeant, 17698.

• Decision Date: 16 September 2008
• Docket Number: No. 17698.,17698.
• Citation: 954 A.2d 839,288 Conn. 673
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Alazaron SARGEANT.

954 A.2d 839

288 Conn. 673

STATE of Connecticut v. Alazaron SARGEANT.

No. 17698.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 21, 2008.

Decided September 16, 2008.

Glenn W. Falk, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

John A. East III, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Michael Dearington, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and SCHALLER, Js.

ROGERS, C.J.

The defendant, Alazaron Sargeant, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of four counts of sexual assault in the first degree as a principal and as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-70(a)(1)¹ and 53a-8(a),² and one count each of kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm as a principal or accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-92a(a) and 53a-8(a), conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48(a) and 53a-92a(a), attempt to commit assault in the first degree as a principal or accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49(a)(1), 53a-59(a)(1) and 53a-8(a), conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of §§ 53a-48(a) and 53a-59(a)(1) and robbery in the first degree as a principal or accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-134(a)(4) and 53a-8(a).³ The defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal with respect to three of the four counts of sexual assault in the first degree because the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury reasonably to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the assaults. We reject the defendant's claim and affirm the judgment of conviction.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On September 26, 2003, at approximately 12:30 a.m., the victim⁴ was driving home alone in the city of West Haven when she stopped her vehicle at a red stoplight at the intersection of First Avenue and Spring Street. A stolen car driven by Clifton Foreman, in which the defendant, Nathaniel Roberts and Earl Banks were passengers, pulled up and stopped alongside of the victim's vehicle. The defendant and Foreman, both of whom were wearing ski masks and brandishing handguns, exited the vehicle and ordered the victim to "get out of the car. . . ." The victim exited her vehicle as instructed because she "thought that they just wanted to have [her] car and [her] money." The defendant positioned himself in the driver's seat of the victim's vehicle and opened the trunk, while Foreman ordered the victim into the trunk and closed the lid. Foreman then drove off in the victim's vehicle with Banks, while the defendant followed in the stolen car with Roberts.

At this point, the victim realized that she still had possession of her cellular telephone and promptly dialed 911 emergency services. She explained to the dispatcher that she had been "carjacked and kidnapped" in West Haven, but that she was unaware of her current location because she was confined to the trunk. Foreman heard the victim talking on her cellular telephone, however, and he stopped the car, opened the trunk and yelled at the victim "who are you talking to? Do you have a cell phone? Who are you talking to?" The victim had the presence of mind to conceal her cellular telephone among her personal possessions stored in the trunk and to babble nonsensically to delude Foreman into thinking that she merely was talking to herself hysterically. The victim's ruse was successful and Foreman closed the lid of the trunk, turned the radio up to a high volume and resumed driving.

Foreman and the defendant eventually stopped and parked their vehicles in a cutout on a dark, isolated and wooded section of Northrop Road in Woodbridge. The victim was directed out of the trunk at gunpoint, instructed to walk into the woods and ordered to remove her clothing. Although the victim complied with this order by removing her jacket, Foreman and the defendant proceeded to rip off the remainder of her clothing until she was naked. Foreman then forced the victim to perform oral sex on him, while the defendant approached the victim from behind and penetrated her vagina with his penis. After both Foreman and the defendant had climaxed, they switched positions and the defendant forced the victim to perform oral sex on him, while Foreman approached the victim from behind and penetrated her vagina with his penis. The defendant subsequently masturbated in the victim's face and, at the point of climax, thrust his penis in her mouth and forced her to swallow his ejaculate. Afterward, the defendant wiped out the inside of the victim's mouth with a white cloth.

After he sexually assaulted the victim, the defendant "tried to snap [the victim's] neck" by twisting her head quickly and violently. The victim fell to the ground, and Foreman proceeded to strike the victim's head repeatedly with a sharp rock. The victim feigned death, hoping that her attackers would cease their relentless assaults. Believing the victim to be dead, the defendant, Foreman, Banks and Roberts fled the scene.

The defendant subsequently was arrested and charged with four counts of sexual assault in the first degree as a principal and as an accessory in violation of §§ 53a-70(a)(1) and 53a-8(a), and one count each of kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm as a principal or accessory in violation of §§ 53a-92a(a) and 53a-8(a), conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm in violation of §§ 53a-48(a) and 53a-92a(a), attempted assault in the first degree as a principal or accessory in violation of §§ 53a-49(a)(1), 53a-59(a)(1) and 53a-8(a), conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of §§ 53a-48(a) and 53a-59(a)(1) and robbery in the first degree as a principal or accessory in violation of §§ 53a-134(a)(4) and 53a-8(a). Following the presentation of the state's case-in-chief, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal with respect to the four counts of sexual assault in the first degree, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury reasonably to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the assaults. The trial court denied the defendant's motion, and subsequently submitted the case to the jury for deliberation. The jury found the defendant guilty of all of the offenses with which he was charged, and the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of imprisonment of eighty-five years. This direct appeal followed.

As an initial matter, we note that the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a limited one. The defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions of kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm, conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm, attempted assault in the first degree, conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree and robbery in the first degree. Furthermore, the defendant does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of one count of sexual assault in the first degree because the victim testified that the defendant was similar in appearance to the individual who masturbated in her face and forced her to swallow his ejaculate. Rather, the defendant claims only that the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury reasonably to find that he had committed, or that he had aided in the commission of, the three remaining counts of sexual assault. Specifically, the defendant claims that "[b]eyond . . . one act of oral intercourse . . . there was no testimony from the [victim] which made a sufficient identification of the defendant . . . to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt for any other act of sexual assault, particularly since both acts of vaginal intercourse occurred from behind." The defendant's claim has no merit and, therefore, we firmly reject it.

"In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we apply a two-part 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. . . .

"[A]s 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 trier, 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, [i]n [our] process of review, it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct. . . . It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. John F.M., 285 Conn. 528, 544 n. 15, 940 A.2d 755 (2008).

In the present case, the defendant was charged with sexual assault in the first degree both as a principal offender and as an accessory. "Since under our law both principals and accessories are treated as principals . . . if the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, establishes that [the defendant] committed the [sexual assault] charged or did some act which forms . . . a part thereof, or directly or indirectly counseled or procured any persons to commit the...