State v. Taylor

Decision Date10 October 2017
Docket NumberAC 39659
Citation177 Conn.App. 18,171 A.3d 1061
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. Solomon TAYLOR

Lisa J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, Amy Sedensky, senior assistant state's attorney, and Dana Tal, legal intern, for the appellee (state).

Alvord, Sheldon and Prescott, Js.

SHELDON, J.

The defendant, Solomon Taylor, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial before a three judge court, on charges that included murder, under the Pinkerton doctrine,1 in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a (a), robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–134 (a) (2), and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48 and 53a–134 (a) (2).2 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for murder, robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree because the evidence does not support the court's findings that he and his alleged coconspirator committed or conspired to commit robbery, and (2) the court improperly disqualified his first attorney approximately twenty months before the start of his trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts were found by the trial court. The defendant and his alleged coconspirator,3 Joseph Walker,4 were long-standing and close acquaintances. They had known each other for years, and Walker and the defendant's sister have a child together. On May 12, 2012, between 7 and 8 p.m., the defendant, Walker and some other friends went to the apartment of Alexia Bates, the defendant's girlfriend, stayed for approximately half an hour to forty-five minutes, and then left.

That same day, the victim, David Caban, called his cousin, Angelo Caban (Angelo), and informed him that he had money he owed Angelo and that Angelo could come to his home that evening to pick it up. The victim lived at 127 Proctor Street in Waterbury with his girlfriend, Lourdes Santana. Santana overheard the victim on his cell phone, saying something about "G's." She knew this was a reference to grams and that the victim's nickname, Yayo, meant cocaine. Santana saw that the victim received a phone call that evening from Walker. She recognized the name on the phone from a call that the victim had received two or three days prior. The earlier call had come while the victim was in the shower. He had asked her to answer the phone and give Walker directions to the house.5 The victim told her that he had been in jail with Walker, and Santana knew that he had been in jail for selling cocaine. After that earlier phone call, Walker had come by the house, and Santana had seen the white Mitsubishi Galant that he was driving. The victim had gone outside to the car for five to ten minutes.

On May 12, 2012, Angelo arrived between 8 and 8:30 p.m., and saw the victim's friend, Anthony Jackson, outside the victim's home. The victim told Jackson that he was waiting for someone. Inside, Angelo saw the victim pacing while the victim was talking on the phone. The victim told Angelo that he was going to "bust a trap," meaning he was going to make a drug transaction. Angelo knew that the victim sold narcotics and that his repayment by the victim would come from a drug sale. Shortly after Angelo arrived at the house, after the phone call from Walker to the victim, Angelo was looking out the kitchen window when he saw a four door Mitsubishi Galant pull up with two black males in it, one in the driver's seat and one in the front passenger seat. This car later was identified as the white Mitsubishi Galant owned by Bates, which the defendant used more than she did.

The victim went outside, saying he was going to talk to "his boy." He went to the Mitsubishi, greeted the occupants of the car and got halfway into the car through the rear passenger side door. Then the victim got out of the car and went inside the house. After entering the bedroom for fifteen to twenty seconds, he came out with something in his hand, which he held "cupped" to his side. As he walked downstairs, he told Angelo to stay where he was and watch over him. He returned to the Mitsubishi and sat in the rear passenger side.

Angelo looked out the window and saw the victim give "dap" (a greeting or locking of hands). Angelo then went outside, where he had a clear view of the Mitsubishi. He saw the victim struggle with someone in the front seat. He also heard muffled gunshots and saw sparks from a gun. Angelo saw the victim grab one of the males in the front seat of the car by the wrist after the victim had been shot in the arm. The other occupant then reached around and shot the victim in the head. Angelo went to the backseat and tried to pull the victim out of the car. He then went around the back of the car, and Walker, who was in the driver's seat, got out of the car and put a dark metal gun in his face. The person in the passenger seat got out of the car and said to Walker, "[y]o, forget it." When Walker turned toward the passenger, Angelo smacked his hand and ran back to his own car, which was parked behind the Mitsubishi.

Jackson, still sitting outside the victim's home, also saw the Mitsubishi Galant pull up with two black males in it. He saw the victim come outside and get in the backseat. Jackson then saw tussling, heard gunshots and saw sparks in the middle of the back of the car.

He got up, grabbed a scooter and ran to the passenger side. He broke the front window with the scooter and leaned in and tried to hit the man in the passenger seat. When he saw a chrome shiny object in the passenger's hand, he ran. The Mitsubishi was gone when he returned.

Santana was in the bedroom when her mother came in and told her that they were shooting at the victim outside. Santana ran to the door, looked outside and saw the victim in the back trying to get out of the Mitsubishi and someone trying to pull him back into the car, then saw the car take off. She tried several times to reach the victim on his cell phone. The first time she called, a man answered. She asked for the victim and the person hung up. She called again and yelled into the phone, and the person hung up. Angelo and Santana tried to follow the Mitsubishi in Angelo's car. They found the victim at the side of the curb on Sylvan Avenue near the intersection with Proctor Street, lying on the ground on his stomach with blood coming from his head.

The defendant and Walker returned to Bates' house in the Mitsubishi at approximately 9:30 p.m. Walker went into the bathroom and would not let anyone in with him. The defendant called Bates into the bedroom. He was pacing and rambling. The defendant told Bates that "crap went wrong" and that Walker had been shot. Bates saw blood on the top of the defendant's underwear. The defendant had a phone in his possession that kept ringing, and when he answered it, Bates could hear a girl screaming on the other end. The defendant looked confused.

The defendant ordered Bates to get his gun from the car. She described the gun as small and dark colored. She had seen it two or three times within one month and knew the defendant kept it in the baseboard heater.

She retrieved the gun from the car and gave it to the defendant, who put it in his waistband.

The defendant then told her to go clean the car. She collected some cleaning supplies, and she and the defendant went down to the car. When Bates and the defendant got to the car, she saw the front passenger window smashed out, a hole in the roof and blood on the front passenger seat, back passenger seat and floor. She found both of the defendant's phones on the floor under the seat. One was a red phone, identical to the one he had in his possession that had been ringing. The defendant, on Bates' discovery of both of his phones in the car, realized the phone that had been ringing in the bedroom was not his. The defendant then said it was "Son's"6 phone, and he smashed Son's phone in the driveway. Someone across the street returned it to him, but he smashed it a second time and threw it away. Bates also saw crack on the floor of the car. Some of the pieces of crack had blood on them. She collected the crack, placed it in a sandwich bag and gave it to the defendant. He then put the crack in his pocket. She and the defendant removed all the items from the car and placed them in several Epic bags.7 Bates then cleaned the car thoroughly with Windex and Clorox. She scrubbed the seats and cleaned up the blood.

Bates asked the defendant what happened, and he told her they had been in New Britain and that someone had tried to rob them and shot up the car. He told her that someone named "Son" had been shot in the shoulder and the leg, which explained the blood, and they took him home.

Later that night, Miguel Rivera showed up at Bates' apartment. He saw the defendant in the kitchen standing by a table, on which was crack that looked like it had blood on it. The defendant said he had spilled juice on it. He asked Rivera if he knew anyone who wanted to trade an eight ball, a .38 special and two hundred dollars. Rivera described the defendant as moving around, mad and frustrated. Bates heard the defendant talking to Rivera about selling the crack for a cheaper price because of the blood and also discussing trading a gun for drugs.

At approximately 10 p.m., Walker called the defendant's friend, Julian Warren, and asked him to come to Bates' apartment. When Warren arrived, he saw the defendant and Bates cleaning the car. He saw the broken front window, blood, broken glass and two bullet holes in the roof. When he went upstairs, he saw Walker with his hand bleeding and wrapped in a white shirt, and crack with blood on it in the bathroom sink. Warren and his friend, Calvin, drove Walker to New York and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Cator v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 17 Abril 2018
    ...omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taft , 306 Conn. 749, 756–57, 51 A.3d 988 (2012) ; see also State v. Taylor , 177 Conn. App. 18, 31–32, 171 A.3d 1061 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 998, 176 A.3d 555 (2018).The record indicates that the jury reasonably could have found ......
  • State v. Patel
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 12 Noviembre 2019
    ...of resistance by the victim or the attempt of the perpetrator to make good his escape and conceal his identity"); State v. Taylor , 177 Conn. App. 18, 33, 171 A.3d 1061 (2017) (Sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction of murder under the Pinkerton doctrine existed where the......
  • State v. Patel
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 8 Enero 2019
    ...a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taylor , 177 Conn. App. 18, 20 n.1, 171 A.3d 1061 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 998, 176 A.3d 555 (2018).4 Because we have concluded that the court did not act unreasona......
  • State v. Turner
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 1 Mayo 2018
    ...added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taft , 306 Conn. 749, 756–57, 51 A.3d 988 (2012) ; see also State v. Taylor , 177 Conn. App. 18, 31–32, 171 A.3d 1061 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 998, 176 A.3d 555 (2018).The jury reasonably could have found the following additional fac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • A Servey of Criminal Law Opinion
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 91, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...Id. at 271 (quoting State v. Pires, 310 Conn. 222, 230-32, 77 A.3d 87 (2013)). [356] Id. [357] Id. at 275. [358] Id. at 275-76. [359] 177 Conn. App. 18, 171 A.3d 1061 (2017), cert, denied, 327 Conn. 998 (2018). [360] Id. at 38 (quoting State v. Peeler, 320 Conn. 567, 579, 133 A.3d 864, cert......
  • A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 91, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...Id. at 271 (quoting State v. Pires, 310 Conn. 222, 230–32, 77 A.3d 87 (2013)). [356] Id. [357] Id. at 275. [358] Id. at 275-76. [359] 177 Conn.App. 18, 171 A.3d 1061 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 998 (2018). [360] Id. at 38 (quoting State v. Peeler, 320 Conn. 567, 579, 133 A.3d 864, cert.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT