State v. Williams, 6789

• Decision Date: 30 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. 6789,6789
• Citation: 558 A.2d 1026,18 Conn.App. 477
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Stanley WILLIAMS.

Page 1026

558 A.2d 1026

18 Conn.App. 477

STATE of Connecticut v. Stanley WILLIAMS.

No. 6789.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 1, 1989.

Decided May 30, 1989.

Vincent Turley, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

Vincent J. Dooley, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Herbert E. Carlson, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., and John Bailey, State's Atty., for appellee (state).

Before BORDEN, DALY and JACOBSON, JJ.

DALY, Judge.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1), ¹ reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63(a) ² and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21. ³ The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred (1) in finding sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions, and (2) in denying his motion to suppress.

The jury could reasonably have found the following facts. On May 11, 1986, at approximately 6 p.m., the defendant, with whom were two male passengers, parked an automobile in front of 254 Davis Drive in Bristol. Shots were fired from the automobile at the apartment of Linda Dudley, who lived at 254 Davis Drive with her two children, aged four years and nine months. Kenneth Slaughter, Dudley's boyfriend, was struck in the neck by a bullet fired from a .22 caliber weapon as he approached Dudley's front door. Dudley and her children were in the apartment at this time. The defendant and his passengers drove away, at which time Dudley fled from her apartment with the four year old child. The nine month old child was left sleeping on a couch in the apartment.

The three men in the automobile returned shortly and several more shots were fired into the apartment. Dudley and her older child returned to the apartment after the second round of shooting ceased and found the baby unharmed. There were, however, bullet holes in the walls of the apartment and the furniture; one bullet was found lodged in the couch on which the baby was sleeping.

The state's witnesses testified that the defendant fired the weapon from the driver's seat of the automobile. Defense witnesses claimed the shooting was done by one of the passengers. The defendant had been observed earlier that day at the home of Slaughter's father carrying a rifle partially wrapped in a jacket and attempting to provoke a fight with Slaughter.

The defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions. His sole and specific claim in this regard is that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show that he was the perpetrator of the crimes. We disagree.

" 'The issue of sufficiency of the evidence and its appropriate standard of review have been analyzed countless times by both this court and our Supreme Court.' ... ' "The issue is whether the jury could reasonably have 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." ' " (Citations omitted.) State v. Ruth, 16 Conn.App. 148, 153, 547 A.2d 548, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 827, 552 A.2d 434 (1988).

The defendant claims that the evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator was insufficient because certain witnesses identified the defendant as the assailant, while other witnesses named one of the passengers. It is obvious from the verdict that the jury chose to believe the state's version of the evidence and to disbelieve the defendant's version. It is for the jury, not this court, "to untangle the knotted and sometimes broken lines of testimony" and to resolve any discrepancies therein. State v. Gaynor, 182 Conn. 501, 504, 438 A.2d 749 (1980). We conclude that, on the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury could reasonably have found that the defendant fired the shots, thereby committing the offenses with which he was charged.

The defendant's final claim of error concerns the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence seized from his car pursuant to a search warrant. ⁴ Pursuant to General Statutes § 54-33c, ⁵ he posits a two-pronged attack on the ruling--that an inventory of the property seized was never filed, and that the warrant was not promptly returned--and asserts that under either theory the evidence should have been suppressed.

Certain additional facts are necessary for the disposition of this claim. On May 13, 1986, two days after the shooting incident, Waterbury police officer Edward Stevens located the defendant's automobile in a parking lot in Waterbury. The Bristol police department had notified the Waterbury police department that the defendant was wanted in connection with the shootings. Upon learning of the automobile's location, the Bristol police obtained a search warrant for it. While the automobile was in Waterbury, Bristol police officer Edward Wadowski observed the vehicle and noticed two .22 caliber cartridge casings on the shelf below the rear window. When the automobile was returned to Bristol, the interior was searched, and two additional .22 caliber cartridge casings were discovered underneath the rear seat. The four casings were the only items seized from the vehicle. Wadowski testified that he filed the...