State v. Adams, 141 A.3d 875

Background

Defendant Lorenzo Adams convicted by the trial court (bench trial) of conspiracy to commit sixth-degree larceny for events at a Microsoft store on Dec. 13, 2012; acquitted of substantive larceny and attempted larceny on related dates.
Prosecution theory: Adams and a female companion (named in the information as Stacey Rossman) visited the accessory area where Beats headphones were displayed; shortly after they left, employees discovered some Beats missing.
Store manager Nancy John viewed security footage and told police the footage showed handling and removal of Beats; John identified still photos of the suspects, and later identified Adams in a showup.
The store did not produce the underlying security video at trial; the trial court excluded John’s testimony about what she saw on the unproduced video and declined to admit the footage itself.
Remaining evidence: witnesses saw Adams in the area, still photographs, inventory discrepancy reported by John, and police recovered pliers and an H&M bag in a vehicle; no recovered headphones and no direct observation of a theft admitted in evidence.
Appellate court reversed the conspiracy conviction, concluding the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the overt act of larceny beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy (overt act)	Circumstantial evidence (manager’s observations, photos, inventory check, police investigation) supported inference someone stole Beats after Adams left store	Evidence was too thin—no video admitted, no witness saw theft, no recovered property, manager admitted items might have been with another customer	Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove overt act (larceny) beyond a reasonable doubt
Admissibility/effect of excluded video testimony	State relied on investigators’ actions after viewing video and urged court to infer theft from those actions	Exclusion of manager’s testimony about the unproduced video deprived state of its primary evidence of theft and handling	Court excluded testimony re: video; appellate review treated excluded testimony as not in evidence and found insufficiency
Whether identity of named coconspirator must be proved	State conceded it failed to prove the name but argued the specific name is not an element	Defendant argued state failed to prove agreement with the named coconspirator	Court did not decide; declined to reach identity issue because conspiracy insufficient on other grounds
Use of subsequent visits/incidents as proof of prior theft	State pointed to visits on Dec. 14 and 18 and repeated reports of missing items to support pattern	Defendant argued subsequent incidents were unproven thefts and inadmissible to prove the Dec. 13 theft	Appellate court rejected reliance on later visits; they did not prove theft on those dates nor establish Dec. 13 theft

Key Cases Cited

State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397 (Conn. 1993) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Reed, 56 Conn. App. 428 (Conn. App. 2000) (describing twofold sufficiency review)
State v. Pond, 315 Conn. 451 (Conn. 2015) (conspiracy requires intent that each element of the substantive crime be committed)
State v. Estrada, 28 Conn. App. 416 (Conn. App. 1992) (limits on permissible inferential leaps)
State v. Saracino, 178 Conn. 416 (Conn. 1979) (circumstantial proof of systematic theft with missing inventory can sustain conviction)
State v. Saez, 115 Conn. App. 295 (Conn. App. 2009) (employee observation of shoplifting supports larceny finding)