State v. Torres
Decision Date | 19 August 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 15513,15513 |
Citation | 242 Conn. 485,698 A.2d 898 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Victor TORRES |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Harry Weller, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John A. Connelly, State's Attorney, and John Davenport, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellant (State).
Susan M. Hankins, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee (defendant).
Before BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, PALMER and McDONALD, JJ.
The defendant, Victor Torres, was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) 1 and 53a-54a (a). 2 The trial court rendered judgment sentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment of fifteen years. The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court, and a divided panel of that court reversed the trial court's judgment on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. 3 State v. Torres, 41 Conn.App. 495, 676 A.2d 871 (1996). We granted the state's petition for certification limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the defendant's conviction was not supported by the evidence. State v. Torres, 239 Conn. 902, 682 A.2d 1012 (1996). Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court. 4
The opinion of the Appellate Court describes many of the facts that the jury reasonably could have found. "The defendant was a 'regional commander' of a street gang known as the 'Latin Kings.' For several weeks, the defendant's gang was involved in an ongoing dispute with a rival gang known as 'Los Solidos.' In the afternoon hours of September 26, 1993, the Latin Kings conducted an emergency meeting ... to discuss a recent incident in which a member of their gang was shot at by a member of the rival gang. During the meeting, Jose Martinez, a member of the gang and a witness for the state, served as a lookout. Although Martinez had attended nine prior gang meetings in which the defendant had been present [in the two month period immediately preceding the shooting], he did not attend the emergency meeting, nor did he know whether the defendant was there. At the meeting, the gang devised a plan to retaliate for the shooting incident by killing a member of Los Solidos.
State v. Torres, supra, 41 Conn.App. at 496-497, 676 A.2d 871.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. 5 The defendant thereafter moved for a judgment of acquittal, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The trial court denied the defendant's motion. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed his conviction on the ground that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence. This certified appeal followed.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. James, 237 Conn. 390, 435, 678 A.2d 1338 (1996). (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 510, 668 A.2d 1288 (1995).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Newsome, 238 Conn. 588, 617, 682 A.2d 972 (1996). 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." State v. DeJesus, 236 Conn. 189, 195, 672 A.2d 488 (1996). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. DeJesus, supra, at 196, 672 A.2d 488; see also State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 134, 646 A.2d 169 (1994).
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." State v. Tomasko, 238 Conn. 253, 258, 681 A.2d 922 (1996). Accordingly, (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Finally, "[i]n reviewing the jury verdict, it is well to remember that [j]urors are not expected to lay aside matters of common knowledge or their own observation and experience of the affairs of life, but, on the contrary, to apply them to the evidence or facts in hand, to the end that their action may be intelligent and their conclusions correct." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ford, supra, 230 Conn. at 693, 646 A.2d 147; State v. Little, supra, 194 Conn. at 674, 485 A.2d 913; see also State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620, 490 A.2d 68 (1985) ().
Because the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, we also must consider the essential elements of the crime of conspiracy. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Schiappa
...supra, 196; see also State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 134, 646 A.2d 169 (1994)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Torres, 242 Conn. 485, 489-90, 698 A.2d 898 (1997). Upon application of these principles, we conclude that the jury verdict was adequately supported by the evidence. S......
-
State v. Gilbert
...the jury's verdict of guilty.' ... State v. DeJesus, supra, 196; see also State v. Sivri, [supra, 231 Conn. 134]." State v. Torres, 242 Conn. 485, 490, 698 A.2d 898 (1997). Furthermore, we are aware that "[w]e do not sit as the `seventh juror' when we review the sufficiency of the evidence;......
-
State v. Wargo, (AC 18126)
...in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Torres, 242 Conn. 485, 489, 698 A.2d 898 (1997). "While the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the cha......
-
State v. Stephenson
...omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rhodes , supra, 335 Conn. at 238, 249 A.3d 683 ;4 see also State v. Torres , 242 Conn. 485, 501, 698 A.2d 898 (1997) (noting that no clear line of demarcation exists between permissible inference and impermissible speculation); State v. H......